Pinkerton v. Canada (Attorney General)

Pinkerton v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2004-05-12
Neutral citation
2004 FCA 190
File numbers
A-354-03, A-355-03, A-357-03
Decision Content
Date: 20040512
Citation: 2004 FCA 190
CORAM: STONE J.A.
NADON J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
Docket: A-354-03
BETWEEN:
ANDREW PINKERTON
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Docket: A-355-03
AND BETWEEN:
LAURA PINKERTON
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Docket: A-357-03
AND BETWEEN:
LAURA PINKERTON
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on May 12th, 2004
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on May 12th, 2004.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NADON J.A.
Date: 20040512
Citation: 2004 FCA 190
CORAM: STONE J.A.
NADON J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
Docket: A-354-03
BETWEEN:
ANDREW PINKERTON
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Docket: A-355-03
AND BETWEEN:
LAURA PINKERTON
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Docket: A-357-03
AND BETWEEN:
LAURA PINKERTON
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
NADON J.A.
[1] Before us are three applications for judicial review pursuant to which the applicants seek orders setting aside decisions rendered on April 11, 2003 by an Umpire, Mr. Justice André Forget, which denied their requests for a reconsideration, under s. 120 of the Employment Insurance Act, of his orders of September 23, 2002 dismissing their appeals from the Board of Referees.
[2] It is clear to us that what the Applicants are seeking, in effect, is to challenge the Umpire's September 23, 2002 decisions. Unfortunately, that avenue is no longer open to them since these decisions are now final decisions, the Applicants having failed to commence a judicial review of the decisions in the prescribed time.
[3] The Applicants did not succeed in convincing the Umpire of the existence of valid grounds justifying a reconsideration of his earlier decisions. They have also failed to persuade us that the Umpire made any error in concluding as he did. Although the Applicants relied on a voluminous record and presented elaborate arguments, they failed to address the specific issue before us, ie. whether the Umpire made any error in refusing to reconsider his earlier decisions.
[4] For these reasons, the judicial review applications will be dismissed with costs.
"Marc Nadon"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-354-03
A-355-03
A-357-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: ANDREW PINKERTON
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
AND BETWEEN:
LAURA PINKERTON
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
AND BETWEEN:
LAURA PINKERTON
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: MAY 12, 2004
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT BY: NADON J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Andrew Pinkerton FOR THE APPELLANT, ON THEIR OWN BEHALF
Laura Pinkerton
Sadian Campbell FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Andrew Pinkerton FOR THE APPELLANT, ON THEIR OWN BEHALF
Laura Pinkerton
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT