Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20040129

Docket: A-37-04

Citation: 2004 FCA 45

Present:           DÉCARY J.A.

BETWEEN:

                                                  DANNY JOY and DORIS GERVAIS

                                                                                                                                                     Appellants

                                                                                 and

                                            THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

                                                                                                                                                   Respondent

                              Heard by teleconference at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 29, 2004.

                                    Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 29, 2004.

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:                                                                                            DÉCARY J.A.


Date: 20040129

Docket: A-37-04

Citation: 2004 FCA 45

Present:           DÉCARY J.A.

BETWEEN:

                                                  DANNY JOY and DORIS GERVAIS

                                                                                                                                                     Appellants

                                                                                 and

                                            THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

                                                                                                                                                   Respondent

                                                            REASONS FOR ORDER

DÉCARY J.A.

[1]                 This motion is for an order to stay, pending appeal to this Court, the order of a Federal Court Judge to deny a stay of a decision of the Institutional Head at Drummond Institution until such time as the application for judicial review of the above decision is disposed of by the Federal Court.

[2]                 For all practical purposes, therefore, the applicants are arguing through a stay application before a judge of this Court the very merit of their appeal which must be heard by three members of the Court.


[3]                 I fail to see what it is that could be stayed by the within order. Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that I were to stay the impugned order, the applicants would be left with a decision of the Institutional Head that is attacked in a judicial review proceeding and with respect to which no stay has been ordered. I cannot conceive how an order which requires nor permits anyone to do, or to refrain from doing, anything under its authority is capable of being stayed (see Janssen-Ortho Inc. v. Minister of Health and the Attorney General of Canada, 2003 FCA 201 (Pelletier J.A.)).

[4]                 The applicants had, and perhaps still have, an opportunity to seek a timely redress, through the filing of a grievance, a motion for an expedited hearing by the Federal Court of their application for judicial review or a motion for an expedited hearing by the Federal Court of Appeal of their appeal from the decision denying them a stay.

[5]                 The application for a stay will be dismissed.

                                                                                                                                            "Robert Décary"                              

                                                                                                                                                                   J.A


.                                                     FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

                              NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                    A-37-04

MOTION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS FOR A STAY OF A DECISION FROM THE INSTITUTIONAL HEAD AT DRUMMOND INSTITUTION MADE ON JANUARY 6, 2004

STYLE OF CAUSE: Danny Joy and Doris Gervais v. The Attorney General of Canada

                                                                                   

PLACE OF HEARING:                      Ottawa

DATE OF HEARING:                        January 29, 2004

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT:                     Décary J.A.

DATED:                       January 29, 2004                       

APPEARANCES:

Ms. Diane Magas

FOR THE APPELLANT

Mr. Éric Lafrenière

Mr. Marc Rubero

FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Magas Law Office

Ottawa, Ontario

FOR THE APPELLANT

Morris Rosenberg, 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.