Date: 20021001
Docket: T-636-02
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 1028
Montreal, Quebec, October 1, 2002
Present: Richard Morneau, Esq., Prothonotary
BETWEEN:
ROBERT J. RICHARDS
and
SANDRA L. RICHARDS
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] These Reasons for Order and Order (Order) come further to the orders of this Court dated August 9, 2002 and August 28, 2002.
[2] This Order addresses, and disposes of, the Respondent's motion dated May 17, 2002 and the Applicants' motion dated June 24, 2002. It also addresses, and disposes of, all the motions that the Court could find in the Court's record which are somehow related to the two aforesaid motions.
[3] Despite the fact that my brother Lafrenière P. has indicated in his order dated August 9, 2002 that the two motions at bar shall "be heard at a special sitting, to be fixed for hearing at a special sitting of the Court, following consultation with counsel for the parties as to their availability", I am satisfied that the said motions, and all related motions, can be adjudicated upon on the basis of the written material filed by the parties in relation thereto; material which is enumerated at the top of page 3 of Lafrenière P.'s order dated August 9, 2002.
I. Respondent's Motion dated May 17, 2002
[4] Upon reviewing the parties' material related to the Respondent's motion dated May 17, 2002, I am quite satisfied that all the reliefs requested by the Respondent in his motion ought to be granted under the terms found hereinafter at paragraph [8].
[5] In reaching this conclusion, I accept and adopt the precise and concise written representations filed by Respondent's counsel in his Motion Record (doc. 6) containing the motion under study (doc. 4), and in his Reply Record filed on June 3, 2002 pursuant to Rule 369(3) (doc. 17).
[6] In his Reply Record, the Respondent correctly draws the Court's attention to the fact that, in the Applicants' Response to the Respondent's motion dated May 17, 2002, the Applicants have included two motions. For the reasons expressed by the Respondent in his Reply Record, these two motions by the Applicants are hereby dismissed.
[7] Consequently, the Respondent's motion dated May 17, 2002 is granted as follows.
[8] IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
A. Are struck out the following parts of the Applicants' Application for Judicial Review (the Application): the parts on pages 4, 5 and 9 of the Application and on page 2 of the Table of Contents of the Application, the whole as outlined by the Respondent on the copy of the Application attached to the Respondent's motion dated May 17, 2002. Pages 63 to 65 of the material attached to the Application is also struck out.
B. For greater clarity, are also struck out references to evidence the Applicants propose to use in the Application but which evidence has not been filed or served on the Respondent, to wit, the parts identified by the Respondent as part C on page 9 of the Application and on page 2 of the Table of Contents of the Application.
C. The audio cassette tape bearing the words "Feb. 4/98 Abusive Call" which was included in the material accompanying the Application is hereby ordered to be removed from the Court's file.
D. As for the documents found under tabs C, F, G, H and I of the Applicants' Application material, they shall be deemed from now on to be properly marked as Exhibits to the Affidavit of S.L. Richards dated April 7, 2002. This measure shall avoid the filing of new affidavit material which might add even more confusion in this file.
E. Paragraphs 16 and 17 of Sandra L. Richards's affidavit dated May 17, 2002 are struck out.
II. Applicants' Motion dated June 24, 2002
[9] It is hereby ordered that the Applicants' motion (doc. 25) dated June 24, 2002 to allow Sandra L. Richards to file a supplementary affidavit dated June 24, 2002 is denied for the reasons expressed by the Respondent in his Motion Record (doc. 31) filed in opposition to the Applicants' motion and in his letter dated July 9, 2002. By the same token, the motion by the Applicants dated July 8, 2002 for an order to the same effect is also denied.
[10] As a case management measure, from now on the parties, and especially the Applicants, shall avoid making interlocutory motions and shall govern themselves solely and strictly in accordance with the following schedule. Any unjustified departure from this schedule risks to be sanctioned by costs awards in the future.
1. The Respondent shall have until October 31, 2002 to comply with Rule 307.
2. Thereafter, the parties shall comply with the requirements of Rules 308 and following.
3. As for Rule 309, Applicants' counsel is reminded that the only manner in which evidence can be put before the Court is by way of affidavit and any documents that the Applicants proposed to put before the Court and rely on in their Applicants' Record ought to have been included in affidavits which had to be served on the Respondent and filed within the prescribed times. Rule 309 is not intended to enable an applicant to serve on respondents and file with the Court documents which have not appeared in any affidavit served and filed by the applicant. This would not only take the responding party by surprise but also deprive the responding party of any opportunity to cross-examine on the documents.
[11] No costs are awarded under this order.
Richard Morneau
Prothonotary
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
Date : 20021001
Docket : T-636-02
BETWEEN:
ROBERT J. RICHARDS
and
SANDRA L. RICHARDS
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET:
STYLE OF CAUSE:
T-636-02
ROBERT J. RICHARDS
and
SANDRA L. RICHARDS
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
WRITTEN MOTION EXAMINED IN MONTREAL WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER:Richard Morneau, Esq., Prothonotary
DATED:October 1, 2002
WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS:
| Mr. G. F. Philip Romney |
|
for the Applicants |
|
|
|
|
| Mr. John J. Ashley |
|
for the Respondent |
|
|
|
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Romney & Romney Bridgewater, Nova Scotia |
|
for the Applicants |
|
|
|
|
| Morris A. Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada |
|
for the Respondent |