Skip to main content
Federal Court of Appeal· 2009

Purdy v. Canada (Military Police Complaints Commission)

2009 FCA 205
AdministrativeJD
Cite or share
Share via WhatsAppEmail
Showing the official court-reporter headnote. An editorial brief (facts · issues · held · ratio · significance) is on the roadmap for this case. The judgment text below is the authoritative source.

Court headnote

Purdy v. Canada (Military Police Complaints Commission) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2009-06-16 Neutral citation 2009 FCA 205 File numbers A-562-08 Decision Content Date: 20090616 Docket: A-562-08 Citation: 2009 FCA 205 CORAM: SHARLOW J.A. LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.A. RYER J.A. BETWEEN: JENNIFER PURDY Appellant and MILITARY POLICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION Respondent Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 16, 2009. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 16, 2009. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.A. Date: 20090616 Docket: A-562-08 Citation: 2009 FCA 205 CORAM: SHARLOW J.A. LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.A. RYER J.A. BETWEEN: JENNIFER PURDY Appellant and MILITARY POLICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 16, 2009) LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.A. [1] We appreciate the appellant’s laudable efforts to seek improvement to the military police investigation process while she also seeks a remedy for what she perceives as an injustice to her. [2] However, we are of the view that the appeal must be dismissed. We are not persuaded, on the facts of this matter, that the motion judge’s discretionary decision, refusing the request for an extension of time within which to bring an application for judicial review, discloses a misapprehension of the facts or an error of law. [3] The respondent did not request costs and none will be awarded. "Carolyn Layden-Stevenson" J.A.…

Read full judgment
Purdy v. Canada (Military Police Complaints Commission)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2009-06-16
Neutral citation
2009 FCA 205
File numbers
A-562-08
Decision Content
Date: 20090616
Docket: A-562-08
Citation: 2009 FCA 205
CORAM: SHARLOW J.A.
LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.A.
RYER J.A.
BETWEEN:
JENNIFER PURDY
Appellant
and
MILITARY POLICE
COMPLAINTS COMMISSION
Respondent
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 16, 2009.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 16, 2009.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.A.
Date: 20090616
Docket: A-562-08
Citation: 2009 FCA 205
CORAM: SHARLOW J.A.
LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.A.
RYER J.A.
BETWEEN:
JENNIFER PURDY
Appellant
and
MILITARY POLICE
COMPLAINTS COMMISSION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 16, 2009)
LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.A.
[1] We appreciate the appellant’s laudable efforts to seek improvement to the military police investigation process while she also seeks a remedy for what she perceives as an injustice to her.
[2] However, we are of the view that the appeal must be dismissed. We are not persuaded, on the facts of this matter, that the motion judge’s discretionary decision, refusing the request for an extension of time within which to bring an application for judicial review, discloses a misapprehension of the facts or an error of law.
[3] The respondent did not request costs and none will be awarded.
"Carolyn Layden-Stevenson"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-562-08
(APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF JUSTICE HARRINGTON OF THE FEDERAL COURT, DATED NOVEMBER 6, 2008, DOCKET 08-T-49
STYLE OF CAUSE: Jennifer Purdy v. Military Police Complaints Commission
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: June 16, 2009
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: (SHARLOW, LAYDEN-STEVENSON, RYER JJ.A.)
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.A
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Jamie Liew
FOR THE APPELLANT/
Mr. Nigel Marshman
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Galldin Liew LLP
Ottawa, Ontario
FOR THE APPELLANT/
Military Police Complaints Commission
Ottawa, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT

Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca

Related cases