OURANIA GEORGOULAS Appellant v. ATTORNEY, 2016 FCA 245

Date: 20161005 Docket: A-375-15 Citation: 2016 FCA 245 CORAM: TRUDEL J.A. NEAR J.A. DE MONTIGNY J.A. BETWEEN: OURANIA GEORGOULAS Appellant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (AGC) TRANSPORT CANADA (TC) CANADA ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES (CAPE) Respondents Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 5, 2016. Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 5, 2016. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: NEAR J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: TRUDEL J.A. DE MONTIGNY J.A. Date: 20161005 Docket: A-375-15 Citation: 2016 FCA 245 CORAM: TRUDEL J.A. NEAR J.A. DE MONTIGNY J.A.

BETWEEN: OURANIA GEORGOULAS Appellant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (AGC) TRANSPORT CANADA (TC) CANADA ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES (CAPE) Respondents REASONS FOR JUDGMENT NEAR J.A. [ 1 ] On May 22, 2015, the Federal Court issued a Notice of Status Review with respect to the appellant’s application for judicial review of a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the Commission).

On June 29, 2015, after conducting the Status Review, the Judge determined that the appellant’s application should be continued as a specially managed proceeding and ordered timelines for the appellant to bring both a motion for further disclosure from the Commission and to serve and file her application record

(the Status Review Order). The Judge stated that the ordered timelines may be varied by the Case Management Judge that would beassigned to the appellant’s proceeding. The appellant did not appeal the Status Review Order. [2] Instead, the appellant brought a motion for reconsideration of the Status Review Order. On August 21, 2015, the Judgedismissed the appellant’s motion on the basis that there was “no valid reason to reconsider any of the terms” in his original StatusReview Order.

The appellant appeals from the Judge’s order dismissing her motion for reconsideration (the Reconsideration Order). [3] This Court issued a direction, dated October 3, 2016, requesting that the parties make submissions at the hearing as towhether this appeal is moot. The appellant did not present herself for the hearing of her appeal although she had been notified that theCourt would be sitting at the Supreme Court Building in order to accommodate her needs. As a result, the Court did not hear from therespondents and decided to take the matter under reserve on the basis of the parties’ written submissions.

Having considered the issue of mootness and the parties’ material filed for this appeal, it is my view that this appeal cannot succeed. Iconclude that this appeal is indeed moot. [4] In Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342 at para. 16, 57 D.L.R. (4th) 231,the Supreme Court of Canada established a two-step analysis for assessing mootness: First it is necessary to determine whether the required tangible and concrete dispute has disappeared and the issues have becomeacademic.

Second, if the response to the first question is affirmative, it is necessary to decide if the court should exercise its discretion tohear the case. [5] In my view, the Order of the Case Management Judge, dated December 21, 2015, makes this appeal moot. The appellant, inlarge measure, seeks to challenge the Status Review Order and Reconsideration Order on the basis that the Judge refused toaccommodate her and grant timelines in accordance with her personal needs.

The Case Management Judge has subsequently recognizedthe appellant’s personal circumstances and her need for accommodation as a result of her disability. The Case Management Judge hasalso replaced the timelines that the Judge originally ordered following the Status Review and then declined to reconsider. Consequently,no “live controversy” remains for this Court to resolve. [6] There is no basis on which this Court could exercise its discretion to hear the appeal despite its mootness.

There is nosufficient adversarial context because the substance of the Status Review Order is not properly under appeal and the Case ManagementJudge has already addressed the appellant’s requested relief.

Further, there are no special circumstances that warrant an expenditure ofjudicial resources to resolve the otherwise moot appeal. [7] In any event, even if the appeal was not moot, I am of the view that the Judge did not err in law or make any palpable andoverriding error in dismissing the appellant’s motion for reconsideration of the Status Review Order (Hospira Healthcare Corporation v.Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215). [8] The Judge correctly stated that reconsideration is only available in a limited set of circumstances.

This Court has held that amotion for reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to reargue merits or for the court to change its mind (Bell Helicopter TextronCanada Limitée v. Eurocopter), 2013 FCA 261 at para. 15, 116 C.P.R. (4th) 161). Rule 397 of the Federal Courts Rules sets out thegrounds for reconsideration. The appellant’s submissions on the motion for reconsideration alleged, in part, that the original ordercontained an “error” where it stated that the “Attorney General delivered a supplementary record”.

The appellant also alleged that theJudge “overlooked” her submissions in response to the Notice of Status Review. The Reconsideration Order addressed both of thesepossible grounds for reconsideration, as captured in Rule 397(2) concerning “clerical mistakes, errors, or omissions” and Rule 397(1)(b)concerning matters “overlooked or accidentally omitted”. The Judge identified the error as a “clerical mistake”, noting that the StatusReview Order should have indicated that it was the Commission that delivered a supplementary record.

The Judge stated, however, thatthis clerical mistake did not affect the validity of the Status Review Order. The Judge also stated that he did not overlook or accidentallyomit any matter because he had all of the parties’ submissions before him when conducting the Status Review. As such, there is no basisfor interfering with the Reconsideration Order. [9] I would dismiss the appeal with costs. "David G. Near" J.A. “I agree. Johanne Trudel J.A.” “I agree.

Yves de Montigny J.A.” FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD AN APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MARTINEAU DATED AUGUST 21, 2015, IN FILE

NO. T-2148-14. DOCKET: A-375-15 STYLE OF CAUSE: OURANIA GEORGOULAS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, TRANSPORT CANADA (TC), CANADA ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES (CAPE) PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: October 5, 2016 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: NEAR J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: TRUDEL J.A. DE MONTIGNY J.A. DATED: October 5, 2016 APPEARANCES : Mathew Johnson For The Respondents ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and TRANSPORT CANADA (TC) Peter Engelmann For The Respondent CANADA ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES (CAPE) SOLICITORS OF RECORD : William F.

Pentney Deputy Attorney General of Canada For The Respondents ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA AND TRANSPORT CANADA (TC) Goldblatt Partners LLP Ottawa, Ontario For The Respondent CANADA ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES (CAPE)