Pariseau v. Canada (Attorney General)

Pariseau v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2001-08-27
Neutral citation
2001 FCT 940
File numbers
00-T-36
Decision Content
Date: 20010827
Docket: 00-T-36
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 940
BETWEEN:
JEAN-CHARLES PARIZEAU
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BLAIS J.
[1] This is a motion for an interlocutory order of mandamus compelling the respondent to perform its duty to grant access to the applicant's prescribed medication.
[2] First of all, the applicant is representing himself and he is not very familiar with the Federal Court Act or the Federal Court Rules.
[3] I should also mention that it is obvious that someone else, not clearly identified, has helped the applicant write this motion and, as I mentioned verbally at the hearing, this work was done by someone who is not a lawyer and some information that was given to the applicant and to other applicants in similar cases was not very helpful to him nor to the Court. Those documents were probably prepared in good faith but the preparation of those complex files needs more than good faith, and I cannot say more than state that the applicant should get help from a lawyer.
[4] I have carefully reviewed the documents provided by the applicant.
[5] The applicant is requesting that the Court orders the respondent, the Minister of Health, to change the limit of seven plants imposed on him.
[6] In the recent decision Neron v. Canada (Attorney General) [2001] F.C.J. No. 1010, FCT 683, Mr. Justice Teitelbaum said:
I am satisfied that even if I were to have sufficient evidence before me that would enable me to grant the interim order requested, Rule 372 is meant to safeguard an applicant's right in the case of an urgency and pending disposition of proceedings.
The issue before me is not a preservation of a right. The applicant will not lose any right if I do not grant the interim order he now requests. It simply means, and I do not minimize the seriousness of his request, that the applicant would have to proceed with an application for judicial review by serving and filing such an application with supporting affidavits from himself and from his doctor or doctors, if that is his desire, and then make a request pursuant to section 18(2) of the Act, again with the necessary evidence.
[7] I have carefully explained to the applicant that the Federal Court cannot make this type of decision.
[8] This Court might review a decision made by the respondent, and eventually quash it and return the file to the Tribunal or the officer that has made it, to reconsider the matter. This is not the case here.
[9] Therefore, I have no other option than to dismiss this motion for a mandamus.
Pierre Blais
Judge
MONTREAL, QUEBEC
August 27, 2001