PRACTICE
Parties
Standing
Federal Courts Rules, r. 369 motion by City of Ottawa to dismiss appeal from Federal Court decision granting City’s application to quash Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision appellant fired by City contrary to Canadian Human Rights Act—Though named as respondent in judicial review application, appellant not filing notice of appearance pursuant to r. 305 and, while at hearing, neither addressing Court nor questioned by Judge—CHRC not appealing—Not to be inferred from failure to file notice of appearance appellant not intending to contest City’s application, waived rights as party—Instead appellant left it to Commission counsel to represent her interest, public interest—Grave step to deprive respondent in proceeding below of right of appeal on technical ground advanced by City—Rules not saying only parties filing notice of appearance may appeal—Only consequence of failure to file is disentitlement to be served documents, unless Court orders otherwise: r. 145—City arguing gap in rules ought be filled, under r. 4, by analogy to Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 61.04(1.1)—Arguing Ontario rule precluding party not filing notice of appearance from appealing—No gap in Federal Courts Rules—That prescribe fewer consequences for failure to file notice of appearance than provincial rules not constituting gap—Even Ontario rule cited not saying only respondent filing notice of appearance may appeal—No judicial authority supporting proposition urged by City—Motion denied with costs to appellant in any event of cause—Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98‑106, rr. 1 (as am. by SOR/2004‑283, s. 2), 4, 145, 369—Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 61.04(1.1) (am by O. Reg. 14/04, s. 31)—Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. H‑6.
Ottawa (City) v. Canada (Human Rights Commission) (A‑25‑05, 2005 FCA 110, Evans J.A., order dated 31/3/05, 4 pp.)