A-671-75
Juan Jose Fourment Lugano and dependent chil
dren Nancy Judith Lugano, Juan Jr. and Danilo
Lugano (Applicants)
v.
Minister of Manpower and Immigration
(Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Urie and Ryan JJ., MacKay
D.J.—Ottawa, June 7, 1976.
Judgment rendered as a result of order of Chief Justice
joining section 28 application and application for extension of
time for granting leave to appeal—Applicants seeking to have
Court consider varying judgment to read that application for
extension of time allowed, leave to appeal granted and appeal
dismissed.
Held, dismissing the application, the Court did not overlook
or omit some matter as alleged. The order reflects precisely
what applicants sought in their original notice of motion.
Having in its judgment refused the extension of time, the Court
thereafter has no power to grant leave or deal with the appeal.
Nor does it have power to amend its judgment by granting the
extension of time to permit it to grant leave to appeal and to
then dismiss the appeal.
MOTION.
COUNSEL:
R. J. Gathercole for applicants.
G. R. Garton for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
c/o Student's Legal Aid Service, Toronto, for
applicants.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondent.
The following are the reasons for judgment
rendered in English by
URIE J.: The applicants seek to have the Court
reconsider its judgment rendered April 30, 1976 1
on the ground that some matter that should have
been dealt with has been overlooked or accidental
ly omitted.
The judgment was rendered as a result of an
order made by the Chief Justice on March 12,
1976, reading as follows:
[19761 2 F.C. 438.
1) The section 28 application on Court file A-671-75 and the
application for an extension of time for granting leave to appeal
on Court file 76-A-46 are to be dealt with together on Court
file A-671-75 to which the papers on Court file 76-A-46 are to
be transferred.
2) The Applicants are to file a memorandum of points of fact
and law on or before Monday, March 22, 1976 and the
Respondent is to file a memorandum of points of fact and law
on or before Friday April 2, 1976.
3) The two proceedings will be heard at Toronto at a time to
be fixed by the Judicial Administrator (Appeal Division).
We are now asked to "consider varying the
Judgment to read that the application for an
extension of time is allowed, leave to appeal is
granted and the appeal is dismissed".
It should be observed that the order of the Chief
Justice is explicit in that it joined the section 28
application and "the application for an extension
of time for granting leave to appeal". The quota
tion reflects precisely what the applicants sought
in their original notice of motion in respect of the
appeal. Moreover, this is the relief referred to in
their memorandum of fact and law. The Court
dealt with both the section 28 application and the
application for an extension of time within which
to appeal the decision of the Immigration Appeal
Board and thus, did not overlook or omit some
matter as alleged.
Having in its judgment refused the extension of
time requested, the Court thereafter had no power
to grant leave or to deal with the appeal. It follows
that it does not now have any power to amend its
judgment by granting the extension of time to
permit it to grant leave to appeal and to then
dismiss the appeal.
The application will, therefore, be dismissed.
* * *
RYAN J.: I concur.
* * *
MACKAY D.J.: I agree.
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.