Ross v. Canada (Privacy Commissioner)

Ross v. Canada (Privacy Commissioner)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2002-08-23
Neutral citation
2002 FCA 459
File numbers
A-389-02
Decision Content
Date: 20020823
Docket: A-389-02
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 459
CORAM: STRAYER J.A.
BETWEEN:
ARTHUR ROSS
Appellant
and
THE WARDEN OF BOWDEN INSTITUTION #3
THE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS CANADA and
THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER
STRAYER J.A.
[1] As I have spent some hours trying to ascertain what documents are relevant to this appeal I believe it will be conducive to the further conduct of the appeal if I explain the basis of my selection. The situation is confused because it appears Her Majesty applied to strike out the judicial review on behalf of all the respondents or in the alternative to strike out the Warden and Commissioner of Corrections, but the Privacy Commissioner made a separate application on his own behalf alone. Then the appellant filed his own notices of motion to strike out these various motions by the respondents. In the meantime Prothonotary Aronovitch, responding apparently to a request for directions from the Registry, ordered on her own motion that the appellant have leave to refile his material on the basis of one application for judicial review in respect of each of the decisions he sought to attack. He then refiled an application only in respect of the Privacy Commissioner (it is not clear what decision of that Commissioner he sought to attack). This was filed on May 15, 2002.
[2] Pinard J. on May 22, 2002 issued 4 orders, respectively dismissing the application for judicial review against the respondent Warden and Commissioner of Corrections, the application for judicial review against the Privacy Commissioner, and the appellant's two motions to dismiss respectively each of these motions for dismissal of the judicial review. In the appellant's notice of appeal the only order of May 22, 2002 specifically appealed is the one striking the application for judicial review against the Warden and the Commissioner for Corrections (Doc. 51). (He complains of the award of costs against him and such costs are only awarded in Doc. 51). However, as he complains in his appeal as to the fact that his amended application for judicial review, filed on May 15, 2002, is nowhere referred to in this order of May 22, 2002, I have concluded that items 6 and 7 should also appear in the Appeal Book for whatever consideration they may require.
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: A-389-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: ARTHUR ROSS V.THE WARDEN OF BOWDEN INSTITUTION #3 ET AL
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT THE APPEARANCES OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: STRAYER J.A.
DATED: AUGUST 23, 2002
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Mr. Arthur Ross.APPELLANT ON HIS OWN BEHALF
No written representations on behalf of the Respondents
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Nelligan O'Brien PayneFOR THE RESPONDENTS
Ottawa, Ontario