Pascal v. Canada (Attorney General)

Pascal v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2004-07-23
Neutral citation
2004 FCA 265
File numbers
A-257-04
Decision Content
Date: 20040723
Docket: A-257-04
Citation: 2004 FCA 265
CORAM: CHIEF JUSTICE RICHARD
NOËL J.A.
EVANS J.A.
BETWEEN:
JEAN-CLAUDE PASCAL
Appellant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Written motion decided without appearance of the parties.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on July 23, 2004.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: NOËL J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: CHIEF JUSTICE RICHARD
EVANS J.A.
Date: 20040723
Docket: A-257-04
Citation: 2004 FCA 265
CORAM: CHIEF JUSTICE RICHARD
NOËL J.A.
EVANS J.A.
BETWEEN:
JEAN-CLAUDE PASCAL
Appellant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
NOËL J.A.
[1] The respondent is seeking by written motion the summary dismissal of the appeal on the ground that it is res judicata and that the appeal is an abuse of process. The appellant did not file a response to the motion to dismiss and the time to do so has now elapsed.
Judicial history
[2] The motion record indicates that in May 2001, the appellant filed an application for judicial review of the decision by Rice J., a designated member under subsection 83(2.1) of the Canada Pension Plan, dismissing the application for leave to appeal before the Pension Appeals Board.
[3] On June 19, 2002, Prothonotary Morneau dismissed the application for judicial review for delay.
[4] On August 27, 2002, Pinard J. affirmed the decision by Prothonotary Morneau and dismissed the appellant's appeal to the Federal Court.
[5] On June 20, 2003, Desjardins J.A. affirmed the decision by Pinard J. and dismissed the appellant's appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal.
[6] On or about July 15, 2003, given the appellant's insistence on filing an application for judicial review on which there had previously been a judgment by the Federal Court of Appeal, Prothonotary Morneau issued the following direction:
In view of Mr. Pascal's insistence that his application for judicial review, dated July 11, 2003, be filed, please file it subject to the Attorney General of Canada's right to have this proceeding struck out.
[7] Following the direction by Prothonotary Morneau, on or about July 16, 2003, a new notice of application for judicial review of a decision on which there had previously been a judgment by the Federal Court of Appeal was filed in the Federal Court and served on the respondent by the appellant.
[8] On February 13, 2004, the Prothonotary ordered the application for judicial review be struck out in accordance with the doctrine of res judicata.
[9] On or about February 23, 2004, a review motion of the Prothonotary's decision striking out the appellant's application for judicial review was filed by the appellant at Federal Court.
[10] On April 13, 2004, Tremblay-Lamer J. issued an order dismissing the appellant's application for appeal and declaring that any other proceeding filed in this case would be without effect, with costs.
[11] On May 13, 2004, Richard Morneau, Prothonotary, gave a direction by which:
[TRANSLATION]
The motion for directions submitted by the applicant on April 21, 2004, shall not be filed and shall be returned to him because it is contrary to the order of Tremblay-Lamer J. dated April 13, 2003 and because it is also a disguised appeal of that order. It should be noted that, in addition, the applicant has lodged with the Federal Court of Appeal as such of Tremblay-Lamer J.'s order dated April 13, 2004 (docket A-257-04).
On a related note, the applicant should take note that any other document or proceeding of any kind whatsoever that the applicant attempts to file or submit to the Court in this case should not be filed or submitted to the Court and shall simply be returned by the Registry to the applicant, without any further formality.
Summary dismissal of the appeal
[12] In light of this history, absent any submissions to the contrary, it seems clear that the remedy that the appellant is seeking in this case is the same as the one that was dismissed by final judgment of our Court on June 20, 2003, for delay. As such, the judgment dated June 20 is res judicata. It is therefore appropriate to summarily dismiss the appeal.
[13] Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed.
"Marc Noël"
J.A.
"I concur.
J. Richard, C.J."
"I concur.
John M. Evans, J.A."
Certified true translation
Kelley A. Harvey, BA, BCL, LLB
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-257-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: JEAN-CLAUDE PASCAL and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
WRITTEN MOTION DECIDED WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: Noël J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: Chief Justice Richard
Evans J.A.
DATE OF REASONS: July 23, 2004
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:
Jean-Claude Pascal
APPELLANT REPRESENTING HIMSELF
Michel Mathieu
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Jean-Claude Pascal
Vaudreuil-Dorion, Quebec
APPELLANT REPRESENTING HIMSELF
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT