Council of Canadians et al. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act et al., (1997) 212 N.R. 254 (FCA)

• Judge: Hugessen, Strayer and MacGuigan, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: April 09, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1997), 212 N.R. 254 (FCA)

Council of Cdn. v. Competition Act (1997), 212 N.R. 254 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

The Council of Canadians and James McGillivray (appellants/applicants) v. Director of Investigation and Research (Competition Act) and Hollinger Inc. (respondents)

(A-1034-96)

Indexed As: Council of Canadians et al. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act et al.

Federal Court of Appeal

Hugessen, Strayer and MacGuigan, JJ.A.

April 9, 1997.

Summary:

The applicants brought a motion for an extension of time to bring an application for judicial review.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Di­vision, in a judgment reported 124 F.T.R. 269, dismissed the motion. The applicants appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 3342.1

Judicial review - General - Practice - Limitation period - Extension of - The Director of Investigation and Research issued an advance ruling certificate re­garding a transaction, which was announced on May 24, 1996 - The Coun­cil obtained a legal opinion on how to attack the decision no later than July 19, but only decided to launch proceedings on September 8 and ultimately sought an extension of time to bring a judicial review application on September 18 - A trial judge dismissed the motion where, although the Council demonstrated an intention to do something from the time it learned of the transaction, it had not demonstrated that the intent was focused on applying for judicial review - The Council et al. appealed - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The trial judge did not consider an ir­relevant factor when he considered whether the Council had formed an inten­tion to apply for judicial review within the limitation period - The Council et al. did not display due diligence.

Administrative Law - Topic 3342.1

Judicial review - General - Practice - Limitation period - Extension of - The Federal Court of Appeal stated that there was no immutable check list of matters that must be reviewed whenever the grant of an extension of time is being con­sidered - The most that could be said was that the court would generally look at whether there was an adequate explanation for the failure to act timely and whether the applicant had an arguable case - See paragraph 2.

Cases Noticed:

Grewal v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 2 F.C. 263; 63 N.R. 106 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

Counsel:

Clayton Ruby, for the appellants;

James D. Sutton, for the respondent, Di­rector of Research and Investigation;

John Longo, for the respondent, Hollinger Inc.

Solicitors of Record:

Ruby & Edwardh, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellants;

Competition Bureau, Hull, Quebec, for the respondent, Director of Research and Investigation;

Aird & Berlis, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, Hollinger.

This appeal was heard at Ottawa, Ontario, before Hugessen, Strayer and MacGuigan, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal.

The following decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered orally on April 9, 1997, by Hugessen, J.A.