Moghbel v. Canada (Attorney General)

Moghbel v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2006-12-15
Neutral citation
2006 FC 1499
File numbers
06-T-78
Decision Content
Date: 20061215
Docket: 06-T-78
Citation: 2006 FC 1499
Ottawa, Ontario, December 15, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Blanchard
BETWEEN:
KAMRAN MOGHBEL
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is a motion by the Applicant Kamran Moghbel, for an extension of time to file a judicial review application against the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission dated December 19, 1994.
[2] By order of this Court dated August 10, 1993, the Applicant was barred from commencing any new action in this Court in relation to his employment and pay equity complaints without leave of the Court.
[3] By direction dated October 20, 2006, Madam Justice Mactavish noted that judicial review of a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission is properly available in this Court and directed that the motion be accepted for filing.
[4] The proposed application for judicial review is in respect of a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission dated December 19, 1994. The 30 day time limitation within which to bring the application established in section 18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act therefore applies in the circumstances.
[5] In his lengthy written submissions, the Applicant raises a number of issues of law, fact and natural justice in support of this motion. He argues that it was not possible to bring an application for judicial review within 30 days after the decision was first communicated because he received the decision on January 19, 1995, after the 30 day limit.
[6] The Federal Court of Appeal in Canada v. Hennelly, [1999] A.C.F. No. 846 (QL) adopted the test set out in Grewal v. Canada, [1985] 2 C.F. 263, as the test applicable to obtain an extension of time. The Court articulated the test as follows:
The Applicant must demonstrate:
1. a continuing intention to pursue his or her application;
2. that the application has some merit;
3. that no prejudice to the respondent arises from the delay; and
4. that a reasonable explanation for the delay exists.
[7] The Plaintiff has offered no reasonable explanation for the 12 year delay in bringing his application
[8] While the Applicant explains he only received the decision on January 19, 1995, after the 30 day limitation, he fails to explain the almost 12 year delay in bringing the within motion. He claims to have been unaware of the grounds he advances for his application, yet he fails to explain why this is so. A review of the stated grounds for the motion contained in the Applicant’s record leads me to conclude that the alleged facts upon which the allegations are based could have been ascertained well before 2006.
[9] The main thrust of the Applicant’s arguments on the merits of his claim is that the Human Rights Commission made its decision without regard to the material before it. I agree with the Respondent that the Applicant would have had access to the pertinent materials in 1995.
[10] The Applicant also fails to explain why his intended legal and natural justice arguments would not have been known to him at the time the decision was rendered.
[11] Further, the Applicant points to no new evidence that could explain or justify the 12 year delay in this file.
[12] I am left to conclude that the Applicant has offered no explanation to justify the delay.
[13] Given the very lengthy delay in this case, I am satisfied that to allow the motion would cause prejudice to the Respondent. In theses circumstances, even if I was satisfied that the Application had a reasonable chance of success, which I am not, I would nevertheless dismiss the motion.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1. The motion for an extension of time to bring an application for judicial review of the December 19, 1994 decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission is dismissed.
“Edmond P. Blanchard”
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: 06-T-78
STYLE OF CAUSE: Kamran Moghbel v. The Attorney General of Canada
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: Motion in writing
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER: Blanchard J.
DATED: December 15, 2006
APPEARANCES:
Kamran Moghbel REPRESENTING HIMSELF
Mr. Marc Bernard FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Kamran Moghbel FOR THE APPLICANT
1-13899 Gouin Blvd West
Pierrefonds, QC H8Z 1X8
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal (QC) H2Z 1X4