FRIEDA MARTSELOS Appellant v. JUDITH GALE, CONNIE BENWELL AND JOLINE BEAVER, 2014 FCA 24

Date: 20140203 Docket: A-295-13 Citation: 2014 FCA 24 CORAM: BLAIS C.J. SHARLOW J.A. GAUTHIER J.A. BETWEEN: FRIEDA MARTSELOS Appellant and JUDITH GALE, CONNIE BENWELL AND JOLINE BEAVER Respondents Heard at Edmonton, Alberta, on February 3, 2014. Judgment delivered from the bench at Edmonton, Alberta on February 3, 2014. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: GAUTHIER J.A. Date: 20140203 Docket: A-295-13 Citation: 2014 FCA 24 CORAM: BLAIS C.J. SHARLOW J.A. GAUTHIER J.A. BETWEEN: FRIEDA MARTSELOS Appellant and JUDITH GALE, CONNIE BENWELL AND JOLINE BEAVER Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Edmonton, Alberta on February 3, 2014) [1] This is appeal from a decision of a judge of the Federal Court (“motion judge”) granting an extension of time to file anapplication for judicial review contesting one or more decisions relating to the ousting of the respondents from the Council of the SaltRiver First Nation. [2] In his brief order, the motion judge indicated that he considered the jurisprudence and the test to meet for such a motion tosucceed, but did not specifically identify the test or the applicable jurisprudence.

He concluded that “the Applicants have met theirburden in that they have adduced evidence that clearly establishes their intention of disputing their ousting”. [3] The decision under review is a discretionary decision subject to deference. As noted by Sharlow J.A. in Apotex Inc. v.Canada (Minister of Health)(Apotex), 2012 FCA 322 at paragraph 14: This Court cannot intervene unless the Judge misdirected himself, failed to give sufficient weight to relevant factors, proceeded on awrong principle of law, or made a decision that is so clearly wrong that it amounts to an injustice (Sellathurai v.

Canada (Minister ofPublic Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 FCA 223, [2011] F.C.J. No. 1003, at paragraph 18). [4] We agree with the appellant that in cases such as this one where the parties disputed what test should be applied by themotion judge, it would have been preferable for the motion judge to expressly state the test that he applied (a simple reference, forexample to a decision of this Court such as Apotex mentioned above at paragraphs 12-18, would have sufficed).

But, the fact remains thatthe test applicable to motions for an extension of time is well known and has consistently been applied by this Court and the FederalCourt. [5] Motion judges are presumed to know the basic law that they are regularly called upon to apply. In this case, the reference tothe applicants’ “intention” makes it clear that the motion judge was referring to the test set out in Canada (Attorney General) v.Hennelly, (FCA), [1999] F.C.J.

No. 846, which the appellant relied on in their written representations before him .Thus, the appellant has not persuaded us that the motion judge erred in law. [6] The appellant argues that the motion judge could not on the record before him conclude that the respondents had a continuedintention, and that in any event, he clearly gave too much weight to this factor. Again, it would have been helpful for the motion judge tosay a bit more in his order, as it is rare that a continued intention to pursue a remedy will be the deciding factor in the absence of anymerit or in the face of a serious prejudice.

That being said, having considered the record before the motion judge, we have concluded thaton the proper test, the motion judge did reach a satisfactory outcome. [7] The appeal will be dismissed. "Johanne Gauthier" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD (APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SCOTT DATED SEPTEMBER 3, 2013, DOCKETNO. 13-T-46)

DOCKET: A-295-13 STYLE OF CAUSE: FRIEDA MARTSELOS v. JUDITH GALE, CONNIE BENWELL AND JOLINE BEAVER PLACE OF HEARING: Edmonton, Alberta DATE OF HEARING: February 3, 2014 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: BLAIS C.J. SHARLOW J.A. GAUTHIER J.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY GAUTHIER J.A. APPEARANCES : David C. Rolf and K. Colleen Verville For The Appellant No one appeared FOR THE RESPONDENT JUDITH GALE No one appeared FOR THE RESPONDENT CONNIE BENWELL No one appeared FOR THE RESPONDENT JOLINE BEAVER SOLICITORS OF RECORD :

Parlee McLaws LLP Barristers and Solicitors Edmonton, Alberta and Dentons Canada LLP Barristers and Solictors Edmonton, Alberta For The Appellant