Thibodeau v. Canada (Minister of Transport)

Thibodeau v. Canada (Minister of Transport)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2002-04-09
Neutral citation
2002 FCT 386
File numbers
02-T-15
Decision Content
Date: 20020409
Docket: 02-T-15
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 386
Montréal, Quebec, April 9, 2002
Before: Pinard J.
BETWEEN:
DOMINIC THIBODEAU
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT
OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
PINARD J.
[1] By his motion the applicant is seeking to have extended the 30-day deadline provided for in s. II.45 of the Airport Restricted Area Access Clearance Program (ARAACP) for filing an application to review a decision by the Minister of Transport of Canada on November 14, 2001. Section II.45 reads as follows:
When a clearance is revoked or an application for a clearance is denied an application for review may be directed to the Federal Court of Canada - Trial Division within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the notice of revocation or denial.
[2] That decision, which the applicant admitted he learned of on November 16, 2001, denied him a security clearance to move about in Dorval Airport's restricted areas.
[3] In my opinion, the applicant offered no reasonable explanation for his delay of over four months in filing his application for review. It was not until February 7, 2002, after attempting in vain to get explanations from the decision-maker and enlist the support of his union representative, that he finally consulted a lawyer. Although he argued that he did not learn of the existence of the prescribed 30-day deadline for filing his application to review the decision in question until February 25, 2002, he still did not file the instant application to extend the deadline in the Registry of this Court until March 13, 2002.
[4] In the circumstances, the applicant's ignorance of the length of the prescribed deadline combined with his negligence or recklessness certainly does not provide an acceptable reason to explain all the delay and justify the extension requested (see McGill v. M.N.R., 63 N.R. 29; Kibale v. Transport Canada (1990), 103 N.R. 387).
[5] Further, the applicant did not mention the occurrence of any unforeseen or unexpected event which prevented him from asserting his right to apply for review earlier (see Chin v. M.E.I. (1994), 22 Imm. L.R. (2d) 136).
[6] The motion is accordingly dismissed with costs.
Yvon Pinard
Judge
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 20020409
Docket: 02-T-15
Between:
DOMINIC THIBODEAU
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT
OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
FILE: 02-T-15
STYLE OF CAUSE: DOMINIC THIBODEAU
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT OF CANADA
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: April 8, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: PINARD J.
DATED: April 9, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Richard A. Morand FOR THE APPLICANT
Chantal Sauriol FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Richard A. Morand FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec