Mennes v. Canada ( Attorney General )
T-538-98
Richard J.
28/5/98
6 pp.
Motion to strike out originating notice of motion on grounds Chief Justice, Federal Court not subject to judicial review as not "federal board, commission or other tribunal"-Applicant inmate of Warkworth Institution in Campbellford, Ontario-In 1992 Chief Justice, Federal Court issuing direction prohibiting applicant from placing on Court file any insulting, abusive or slanderous remarks-Chief Justice further directing any document submitted by applicant for filing should not be filed without first submitting it to prothonotary for examination as to whether containing scandalous, insulting or abusive matter that should not be permitted to be placed on Court file-In 1998 applicant advised prohibition still in force, applicable to any material applicant attempting to file in any Court file-Application record containing originating notice of motion seeking judicial review of Chief Justice's direction, supporting affidavit and concise memorandum of points to be argued sent to Registry by registered mail-Filed notwithstanding Chief Justice's direction-Application allowed-Only if judge not acting as judge that decision subject to judicial review by Court-Test formulated in Herman et al. v. Deputy Attorney General (Can.), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 729 applied-In issuing direction, Chief Justice not exercising peculiar, distinct, exceptional jurisdiction, separate from and unrelated to tasks performed from day to day as Judge-Chief Justice purporting to act within Court's inherent power to control own process-Direction not decision of "federal board, commission or other tribunal" within Federal Court Act, s. 2-Court lacking jurisdiction under s. 18.1 to judicially review Chief Justice's direction-Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, ss. 2(1) (as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 1) "federal board, commission or other tribunal", 18.1 (as enacted idem, s. 5).