Hutchinson v. Canada (Minister of Environment)
Court headnote
Hutchinson v. Canada (Minister of Environment) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2001-04-20 Neutral citation 2001 FCT 360 File numbers T-1072-98 Decision Content Date: 20010420 Docket: T-1072-98 Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 360 Ottawa, Ontario, this 20th day of April, 2001 PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN A. O'KEEFE BETWEEN: CHARLOTTE HUTCHINSON Applicant - and - HONOURABLE CHRISTINE STEWART in her capacity as Minister of Environment Canada Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER O'KEEFE J. [1] This is a motion by the applicant pursuant to Rules 369 and 397(1)(b) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106 for an order that my order in this matter be reconsidered by me so as to address the issue of costs. [2] The Canadian Human Rights Commission also made a motion to be granted leave to intervene in this motion made by the applicant. [3] There has been an appeal of my order by the respondent. [4] The motion is opposed by the respondent. Issue [5] Should the applicant's motion be granted? Analysis and Decision [6] As noted, my order in this matter was appealed by the respondent. The issue now becomes whether I can deal with the matter once an appeal has been filed. Madam Justice Reed in Flexi-Coil Ltd. v. Smith-Roles Ltd. (1985), 4 C.P.R. (3d) 174 (F.C.T.D.) at page 175 stated: There is, however, an additional and overriding reason for rejecting this motion: the December 6, 1984 order is under appeal. Accordingly, in my view, it would be highly improper for…
Read full judgment
Hutchinson v. Canada (Minister of Environment) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2001-04-20 Neutral citation 2001 FCT 360 File numbers T-1072-98 Decision Content Date: 20010420 Docket: T-1072-98 Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 360 Ottawa, Ontario, this 20th day of April, 2001 PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN A. O'KEEFE BETWEEN: CHARLOTTE HUTCHINSON Applicant - and - HONOURABLE CHRISTINE STEWART in her capacity as Minister of Environment Canada Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER O'KEEFE J. [1] This is a motion by the applicant pursuant to Rules 369 and 397(1)(b) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106 for an order that my order in this matter be reconsidered by me so as to address the issue of costs. [2] The Canadian Human Rights Commission also made a motion to be granted leave to intervene in this motion made by the applicant. [3] There has been an appeal of my order by the respondent. [4] The motion is opposed by the respondent. Issue [5] Should the applicant's motion be granted? Analysis and Decision [6] As noted, my order in this matter was appealed by the respondent. The issue now becomes whether I can deal with the matter once an appeal has been filed. Madam Justice Reed in Flexi-Coil Ltd. v. Smith-Roles Ltd. (1985), 4 C.P.R. (3d) 174 (F.C.T.D.) at page 175 stated: There is, however, an additional and overriding reason for rejecting this motion: the December 6, 1984 order is under appeal. Accordingly, in my view, it would be highly improper for me to attempt to vary that order now, even should I wish to do so. The motion will be dismissed. The defendant should have its costs of this application in any event of the cause. As my order has been appealed, I would therefore adopt the reasoning of Madam Justice Reed and dismiss the applicant's motion which was made on the basis of Rule 397(1)(b) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, supra. [7] Because of my disposition of the motion, it is not necessary to deal with the motion of the Canadian Human Rights Commission for leave to intervene in the applicant's motion. [8] There shall be no order as to costs of this motion. ORDER [9] IT IS ORDERED that the motion of the applicant is dismissed. [10] AND IT IS ORDERED that there shall be no order as to costs for this motion. "John A. O'Keefe" J.F.C.C. Ottawa, Ontario April 20, 2001
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca