Date: 19990922
Docket: T-938-98
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, WEDNESDAY, THIS 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1999
BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TEITELBAUM
BETWEEN:
SHIRAZ ISMAIL
Applicant
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CANADA
Respondent
ORDER AND REASONS FOR ORDER
The applicant in this case, Mr. Shiraz Ismail, who is acting on his own behalf, both on the Rule 369 motion as well as on the application for judicial review, made the present motion "requesting a postponement of an appeal scheduled before the Court on October 6 1999".
According to the Notice of Motion, the grounds are "As this motion is brought forward in a timely manner and would not adversely affect any party to the hearing, it is respectfully submitted that this motion be granted".
The applicant filed his own affidavit relating to the issue of an adjournment.
In his affidavit, the applicant states:
| 4. I was going to move into a new house August 26, 1999, but have now been advised that my moving date is being delayed by six weeks. |
| 5. The new date for my move is October 7, 1999, a day after the scheduled Court appearance. |
| 6. Due to this, I will not be able to fully prepare for the Court case and will be unduly stressed. |
| 7. Postponing the matter before the Court will not cause any prejudice to any of the parties involved and I have been in contact with the Respondent in this matter to seek consent to this postponement request. |
The respondent, by letter dated September 9, 1999, states that the "respondent, the Attorney General of Canada takes no position ...".
At the request of the applicant, a request for a hearing date was made to the Associate Chief Justice on January 18, 1998.
As a result of the request, and, I assume, with the consent of both parties, an Order was issued on April 29, 1999 setting down the hearing for October 6, 1999 for a full day.
As a result of this April 29, 1999 Order, a judge of the Court was assigned to hear this matter. In addition, a Court Registrar was assigned and a courtroom was set aside for this hearing.
Because of the manner in which the Federal Court Trial Division functions, if a case does not proceed on the scheduled date, nothing can be scheduled to replace the case set down for hearing.
This, in effect, means that the day is "lost" for the judge assigned to the hearing and the courtroom remains vacant.
All this to say that there may be no prejudice to the two parties to the present application, but the"third party", the Federal Court, will be severely prejudiced.
I also do not speak of the Canadian taxpayer who will certainly be, indirectly, prejudiced.
It is only in extreme and rare cases that hearings set down by Order should be adjourned.
I well sympathize with the applicant and can well understand the stress that is involved when a lay applicant represents himself even if he were not in the process of moving.
Unfortunately for the applicant, I am not satisfied that his reason for his request is sufficiently serious for me to grant his request.
The application for adjournment is denied.
"Max M. Teitelbaum"
| J.F.C.C. |