Taker v. Canada (Attorney General)

Taker v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2012-03-09
Neutral citation
2012 FCA 83
File numbers
A-228-11
Decision Content
Date: 20120309
Docket: A-228-11
Citation: 2012 FCA 83
CORAM: PELLETIER J.A.
DAWSON J.A.
STRATAS J.A.
BETWEEN:
DARLENE TAKER
Appellant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties.
Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 9, 2012.
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: THE COURT
Date: 20120309
Docket: A-228-11
Citation: 2012 FCA 83
CORAM: PELLETIER J.A.
DAWSON J.A.
STRATAS J.A.
BETWEEN:
DARLENE TAKER
Appellant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER BY THE COURT
THE COURT
[1] Rule 397 of the Federal Courts Rules SOR/98-106 allows this Court to reconsider its own order when one of two conditions exists:
a) the order does not accord with the reasons given for it; or
b) a matter that should have been dealt with has been overlooked or accidentally omitted.
[2] Ms. Taker has filed a motion, out of time, asking this Court to reconsider its judgment dismissing her appeal from the decision of a designated member of the Pension Appeal Board refusing leave to appeal the decision of the Review Tribunal.
[3] Ms. Taker’s memorandum of fact and law seeks to re-argue the merits of her appeal, referring to the medical evidence and the conclusions which she urged us to draw from that evidence when we heard her appeal.
[4] Ms. Taker does not identify any discrepancy between this Court’s decision and the reasons which it gave for that decision. Nor does she identify a matter which ought to have been dealt with but which was overlooked or omitted. It is important to note that Rule 397 cannot be used to reverse what has already been ordered: Yukon Forest Corporation v. Canada, 2006 FCA 34.
[5] Having heard and decided Ms Taker’s appeal, this Court is functus officio, a latin phrase which simply means that the Court has exercised its jurisdiction and is powerless to revisit its decision, except in the very narrow circumstances identified in Rule 397.
[6] We are unable to grant Ms. Taker the remedy which she seeks. The motion for reconsideration will be dismissed.
“J.D. Denis Pelletier”
J.A.
“Eleanor R. Dawson”
J.A.
“David Stratas”
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-228-11
STYLE OF CAUSE: DARLENE TAKER and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY THE COURT: PELLETIER, DAWSON, STRATAS JJ.A.
DATED: March 9, 2012
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Ms Darlene Taker
Self-represented
FOR THE APPELLANT
Mr. Martin Kreuser
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Ms Darlene Taker
Self-represented
FOR THE APPELLANT
Myles J. Kirvan
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE RESPONDENT