Edmonton, Alberta, November 7, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Barry Strayer
BETWEEN:
RICHARD EDWARD HORSEMAN
Applicant
and
DION SHERMAN HORSEMAN, WALTER A.J. HORSEMAN,
DEAN RALPH HORSEMAN, MICHASEL LORNE HORSEMAN
and EUGENE L. HORSEMAN
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is a motion for an extension of time to apply for judicial review.
[2] The Horse Lake First Nation in Albert held elections for the Chief and Band Councillors under its own Regulations, on June 29, 2005. The applicant was an unsuccessful candidate for chief. He appealed the elections to an Appeal Board established under the Regulations. The Appeal Board after hearing witnesses and submissions dismissed the appeal in a decision of February 20, 2006. The results of the appeal were made known to the applicant on March 3, 2006 and he received a copy of the decision on March 7, 2006. He filed this motion for an extension of time on May 9, 2006, some 33-37 days (depending on when one considers the decision was “communicated to him”) after the time limit for an application for judicial review to be filed as prescribed by subsection 18.1(2)of the Federal Courts Act.
[3] I have concluded that the extension of time should not be granted. The usual criteria for granting such extensions are well known although it is a discretionary power for which other grounds for its exercise may appear in appropriate cases. See, e.g.: Grewal v. Canada [1985] 2 F.C. 263 at 277-78 (C.A.); Jakutavicius v. Canada (Attorney General) [2004] F.C.J. No. 1488 at paras. 15, 16.
[4] The factor which I consider determinative in this case is what I find to be the lack of an arguable case. A court undertaking a review of the Appeal Board decision would, I believe, be asked to review findings of fact as to the existence and scope of electoral corruption. The Board put considerable stress on its findings of credibility largely based on the demeanour of the witnesses whom it had before it. The Board consisted of three experienced lawyers, the Chairperson being a former Chief Justice of a provincial superior court. The standard of review of the Board’s findings of fact on judicial review would, in my view, be patent unreasonableness, and I do not believe the applicant has demonstrated even tentatively a likelihood of such a review succeeding in his favour. Apart from these important findings of fact a judicial review would have to consider the findings of the Appeal Board in applying the election Regulations, that is, the law, to the facts. There the standard of review would I think be reasonableness and again I do not see in the applicant’s material any likely basis for a reviewing court to find a lack of reasonableness in the Board’s conclusions.
[5] As for other factors, I find the evidence ambiguous as to whether the applicant had truly formed an intention within the 30-day time limit to bring an application for judicial review. I also believe that to allow this application to proceed will be prejudicial to the harmony of the First Nation for no particular reason.
[6] I will therefore dismiss the motion, with costs.
ORDER
The motion for an extension of time to apply for judicial review is dismissed with costs.
“B.L. Strayer”
Deputy Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: 06-T-38
STYLE OF CAUSE: RICHARD EDWARD HORSEMAN v.
DION SHERMAN HORSEMAN and others
PLACE OF HEARING: EDMONTON, ALBERTA
DATE OF HEARING: NOVEMBER 6, 2006
REASONS FOR ORDER: STRAYER, DJ.
APPEARANCES:
|
Mr. Michael E. Wheaton
|
|
|
Mr. H. Derek Lloyd, Q.C.
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Dobko, Logan, Innes and Hougestol Grande Prairie, Alberta
|
|
|
Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP Calgary, Alberta
|