Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Date: 20140514

Docket: A-378-13

Citation: 2014 FCA 128

Heard at Montréal, Quebec, on May 14, 2014.

Judgment delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on May 14, 2014.

Date: 20140514

Docket: A-378-13

Citation: 2014 FCA 128

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Qu ebec, on May 14, 2014)

NOËL J.A.

[1]               This is an appeal against an interlocutory decision of the Federal Court whereby Justice Annis denied the request for material filed by Mr. Agnaou (the appellant) under rule 317 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98‑106 (the Rules), and dismissed the application for leave to serve an additional affidavit in support of said material and for an extension of time with regard to his application for judicial review.

[2]               The appeal must fail. In our opinion, the application for judicial review underlying this matter does not support the submissions of the appellant is submitting with respect to his request to obtain material and file additional evidence.

[3]               Although the notice of request does indeed refer to [translation] “interference” by senior management of the Public Service Commission (the Commission) in the investigation process and similar conduct (Appeal Book, Vol. I at p. 19), the same cannot be said of the application for judicial review, which simply refers to a [translation] “lack of care” by the Commission in regard to the appellant (Appeal Book, Vol. I at p. 267). The grounds for judicial review primarily concern the leniency of the sanction imposed, which, according to the appellant, is attributable to the troubles he had with the Commission in relation to other matters, and in that context, the words [translation] “lack of care” make perfect sense (Appeal Book, Vol. I at pp. 267, 272 to 276, 283, 284, 288 and 289).

[4]               The enlargement of the scope application for judicial review that the applicant apparently assumed he could achieve in drafting his notice of request cannot be effected by osmosis. Only a formal amendment, with leave of the Court, could have allowed the appellant to raise matters that he now says are relevant.

[5]               Upon examination of the materials requested by the appellant under either rule 312 or rule 317, Justice Annis concluded that they were not relevant, having regard to the allegations in the application as drafted, and the appellant did not persuade us that the judge erred in deciding as he did.

[6]               The appeal will therefore be dismissed, with costs assessed by the Court at $1,500.

“Marc Noël”

Certified true translation

François Brunet, Revisor

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

(APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE ANNIS OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA, DATED NOVEMBER 12, 2013, DOCKET NO. T‑825‑13.)

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: