Frost v. Suffesick and Kudryk, (1998) 212 A.R. 148 (CA)

• Judge: Sulatycky, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: December 18, 1997
• Citations: (1998), 212 A.R. 148 (CA)

Frost v. Suffesick (1998), 212 A.R. 148 (CA);

       168 W.A.C. 148

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] A.R. TBEd. MR.001

In The Matter Of the Police Act, S.A. 1988, c. P-12.01, and the Regulations;

And In The Matter Of the Appeal of Ms. Chelsey Frost concerning a complaint against Csts. W. Suffesick (No. 2708) and G. Kudryk (No. 1866) of the Calgary Police Service.

Chelsey Frost (appellant) v. Cst. W. Suffesick (No. 2708) (respondent) and Cst. G. Kudryk

(No. 1866) (respondent)

(File No. 97-17376)

Indexed As: Frost v. Suffesick and Kudryk

Alberta Court of Appeal

Sulatycky, J.A.

February 12, 1998.

Summary:

Frost brought a complaint against two Calgary police constables. The Law Enforce­ment Review Board rendered a decision. Frost's father, although not a law­yer, was permitted to act on her behalf. Frost applied for leave to appeal the decision outside the 30 day time frame provided for in s. 18 of the Police Act.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Sulatycky, J.A., held that the application was out of time. The court declined to extend the time where Frost did not exercise due dili­gence in seeking leave to appeal.

Police - Topic 4162

Internal organization - Discipline - Appeals - When available - [See Practice - Topic 8872 ].

Practice - Topic 35

Actions - Conduct of - General - Represen­tation by non-lawyer - [See Practice -Topic 8872 ].

Practice - Topic 8872

Appeals - Leave to appeal - Extension of time for application for - Frost brought a complaint against two police constables - The Law Enforcement Review Board rendered a decision - Frost applied for leave to appeal the decision outside the 30 day time frame provided for in s. 18 of the Police Act - Frost's father, although not a lawyer, was permitted to act on her behalf - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Sulatycky, J.A., held that the application was out of time - The court declined to extend the time where Frost did not exer­cise due diligence in seeking leave to appeal - The court stated that "[i]dentical standards of diligence in meeting time limits imposed by statutes must be applied to all those who represent others before the court." - See paragraph 15.

Cases Noticed:

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 271; 87 N.R. 333, refd to. [para. 10].

Lacroix v. Valois, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1259; 119 N.R. 64; 36 Q.A.C. 280, dist. [para. 11].

Edmonton Nurseries Ltd. v. Edmonton (City) et al. (1976), 2 A.R. 14 (C.A.), dist. [para. 12].

Statutes Noticed:

Police Act, S.A. 1988, c. P-12.01, sect. 18 [para. 9].

Counsel:

The appellant appeared on her own behalf;

J.D.D. Steele, for the respondents;

L.H. Whittaker, for the Law Enforcement Review Board.

This application was heard in Chambers on December 18, 1997, by Sulatycky, J.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal, who delivered the following decision on February 12, 1998.