Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Pronouncements
The Appellant claimed that her interpretation of the advice given by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Registry was that an extension of time was not needed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT noted that it has repeatedly and consistently strictly enforced the time limits for filing applications and appeals, which assures the goal of hearing cases and rendering judgments in a timely fashion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found that it was unreasonable for the Appellant, even as a layperson, to conclude that an extension of time would never be needed and that there was no limitation on the time for filing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any error of law or fact in Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT¡¯s decision that her application was not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision not to renew her contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT dismissed her application as not receivable ratione temporis, as she delayed filing her application by about five and a half months.
Legal Principle(s)
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT repeatedly and consistently strictly enforces the time limits for filing applications and appeals. It is the staff member¡¯s responsibility to ensure that they are aware of the applicable procedure in the context of the administration of justice at the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµ and ignorance cannot be invoked as an excuse.