Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20180322


Docket: A-54-17

Citation: 2018 FCA 60

CORAM:

RENNIE J.A.

WOODS J.A.

LASKIN J.A.

 

BETWEEN:

WILLIAM HAMILTON CROOK

Appellant

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on March 22, 2018.

Judgment delivered at Toronto, Ontario, on March 22, 2018.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:

CONCURRED IN BY:

RENNIE J.A.

 

WOODS J.A.

LASKIN J.A.

 


Date: 20180322


Docket: A-54-17

Citation: 2018 FCA 60

CORAM:

RENNIE J.A.

WOODS J.A.

LASKIN J.A.

 

BETWEEN:

WILLIAM HAMILTON CROOK

Appellant

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

RENNIE J.A.

[1]  William Crook appeals an order of the Federal Court dated January 20, 2017 per Justice Diner dismissing his application for an extension of time to appeal an order of Prothonotary Aalto dated October 3, 2016. In that decision, the prothonotary struck out Mr. Crook’s statement of claim in its entirety without leave to amend.

[2]  The motions judge denied Mr. Crook’s application for an extension of time to file an appeal of the prothonotary’s decision because “[t]he reasons provided by [Mr. Crook] … do not justify any extension of time”. He also found that Mr. Crook “… fail[ed] to raise any argument which would serve as a basis for the Court to intervene” in the prothonotary’s order.

[3]  The decision whether or not to grant an application for an extension of time is a discretionary decision reviewable for a palpable and overriding error (Leishman v. Canada, 2017 FCA 206 at para. 8; Hospira Healthcare Corporation v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215 at para. 79, [2017] 1 F.C.R. 331).

[4]  It is well-established that there are four factors to be considered when determining whether an application for an extension of time should be granted: whether the moving party had a continuing intention to pursue the application; the potential merit to the appeal; prejudice to the opposing party, and the existence of a reasonable explanation for the delay (Canada (Attorney General v. Larkman, 2012 FCA 204 at para. 61, 433 N.R. 184 (Larkman)).

[5]  The overriding consideration is to ensure that the interests of justice are served, and not all four factors must be in the applicant’s favour (Larkman at para. 62).

[6]  Although the motions judge does not explicitly apply this test, it is clear from his reasons, when read in light of the prothonotary’s decision, the proposed statement of claim, and the appellant’s arguments in support of the extension, that the Federal Court judge turned his mind to the relevant factors. I see no error that would justify this Court’s intervention.

[7]  This appeal will therefore be dismissed, with costs fixed in the amount of $500.00 all inclusive.

“Donald J. Rennie”

J.A.

“I agree

Judith Woods J.A.”

“I agree

J.B. Laskin J.A.”

 


FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD


APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINER OF THE FEDERAL COURT DATED JANUARY 20, 2017 IN DOCKET NO. T-1161-16.

DOCKET:

A-54-17

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:

WILLIAM HAMILTON CROOK v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

 

PLACE OF HEARING:

Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING:

March 22, 2018

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:

RENNIE J.A.

CONCURRED IN BY:

WOODS J.A.

LASKIN J.A.

DATED:

MARCH 22, 2018

APPEARANCES:

William Hamilton Crook

FOR THE APPELLANT

(self-represented)

Heather Thompson

For The Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Nathalie G. Drouin

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

For The Respondent

 

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.