Winnicki v. Canada (Human Rights Commission)

Winnicki v. Canada (Human Rights Commission)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2007-01-04
Neutral citation
2007 FCA 3
File numbers
A-334-06
Decision Content
Date: 20070104
Docket: A-334-06
Citation: 2007 FCA 3
Present: NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
TOMASZ WINNICKI
Appellant
(Responding Party)
and
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Respondent
(Moving Party)
Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties.
Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 4, 2007.
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: NOËL J.A.
Date: 20070104
Docket: A-334-06
Citation: 2007 FCA 3
Present: NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
TOMASZ WINNICKI
Appellant
(Responding Party)
and
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Respondent
(Moving Party)
REASONS FOR ORDER
NOËL J.A.
[1] I am seized with an ancillary motion to shorten the time within which the responding party must respond to the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s (the Commission) application to set aside the interim stay of the contempt order issued by von Finckenstein J. on July 12, 2006 and the imprisonment thereby ordered. Specifically, the Commission requests that contrary to what the Rules provide, account be taken of the Christmas holidays in computing this delay.
[2] The Commission brings this motion so that its application to set aside the stay can be heard (and presumably disposed of) before January 16, 2007, that is the day on which the appeal from von Finckenstein J.’s contempt order, and in particular from the prison sentence which he imposed, is to be heard by this Court (see motion material, written representations, para. 33).
[3] Based on the record before me, the Commission has been in a position to proceed with its application since November 24, 2006, the day of the alleged breach of the order staying the contempt order. For reasons that are unexplained, the application was not brought until December 22, 2006. The Commission’s desire to expedite the application only arises because it failed to present the application earlier.
[4] In the circumstances and given the significance of the decision sought from the perspective of the responding party, the Court is not inclined to modify the delays prescribed by the Rule.
[5] Motion denied.
“Marc Noël”
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-334-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: TOMASZ WINNICKI and
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: NOËL J.A.
DATED: JANUARY 4, 2007
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
James Foord
FOR THE APPELLANT
Judith Parisien & Joy Noonan
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
FOORD, MURRAY
Ottawa (Ontario)
FOR THE APPELLANT
HEENAN BLAIKIE LLP
Ottawa (Ontario)
FOR THE RESPONDENT