Case information

Judgments and orders — Interlocutory orders — Appeal — Extension of time — Whether impartiality, integrity and independence of federal court judges are compromised by offices held by respondent in state, that of Attorney General of Canada and that of Minister of Justice — Whether proceedings against Attorney General of Canada/Minister of Justice, in which trial is without jury, give Attorney General of Canada/Minister of Justice advantage in that disputes between state and citizens are dealt with by judges appointed by him — Whether Attorney General of Canada and Minister of Justice’s position as respondent is consistent with Canadian Bill of Rights concerning justice — Whether federal court judges find themselves in conflict of interest because of dual office of respondent in state — Whether Federal Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to allow motion for leave to appeal to obtain leave to appeal interlocutory order of Federal Court of Appeal if constitutional questions are also addressed — Whether Honourable Justice Richard Boivin of Federal Court of Appeal had jurisdiction not to allow filing of motion for leave to appeal order of July 29, 2023, given that it was his own order — Whether Federal Court of Appeal’s order of August 29, 2023, by Honourable Justice Richard Boivin complies with applicable standard with regard to extensions of time.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicant, Neculai Otoman, filed a claim for employment insurance benefits, and the Canada Employment Insurance Commission informed him that he was not eligible for the benefits. The Commission reconsidered and upheld its decision, and the Social Security Tribunal also came to the conclusion that Mr. Otoman was not eligible for the benefits. Mr. Otoman applied for judicial review of the decision of the Social Security Tribunal’s Appeal Division, which had denied leave to appeal the Social Security Tribunal’s decision, finding that there was no reasonable chance of success for his arguments. Before the court ruled on the application for judicial review, Mr. Otoman filed a motion with the Federal Court to obtain a default judgment and the employment insurance benefits with related damages. He alleged faults on the part of the respondent, the Attorney General of Canada.

St-Louis J. of the Federal Court dismissed Mr. Otoman’s motion. She was satisfied that Mr. Otoman’s motion for default judgment granting benefits lacked the requisite legal and factual basis. Boivin J.A. of the Federal Court of Appeal issued an order dismissing Mr. Otoman’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal against the Federal Court’s interlocutory order. He considered the parties’ submissions, the principles developed regarding the granting of extensions of time and the fact that the motion was unfounded.