PRACTICE |
Variation of Time |
Belmonte v. CUPE Longshoremen's Union, Local 375
A-470-03
2004 FCA 141, Pelletier J.A.
2/4/04
5 pp.
Motion for extension of time to file notice of application against decision by Canada Industrial Relations Board (Board) --Board dismissed applicants' complaint that respondent Longshoremen's Union. Local 375 (Union) guilty of CUPE unfair practices toward applicants--Board dismissed complaint on grounds that filed beyond deadline and that applicants had no standing because not members of Union in question--In support of motion, applicants filed affidavit of counsel handling the matter--Counsel was therefore deponent and presenting arguments to Court based on affidavit, contrary to Federal Court Rules, 1998, r. 82--Counsel should not be subject of litigation--Counsel's affidavit inadmissible for purposes of motion for extension of time--Party claiming extension of time must meet test set out in Canada (Attorney General) v. Hennelly (1999), 244 N.R. 399 (F.C.A.)-- Decisive criteria herein showing that application valid-- Question not whether motion to strike valid, but whether notice of application valid--Notice of application raises questions not appearing in motion to strike--Four grounds raised including absence of procedural fairness and fact that Board relied on report prepared by officer--Nothing in applicants' arguments dealing with validity of these allegations which had nothing to do with fact that Board dismissed applicants' complaint because applicants not members of Union accused of unfair practices toward them, and so no standing in matter--Nothing before Court to find prima facie notice of application valid--Motion dismissed-- Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, r. 82.