|
Federal Court |
|
Cour fédérale |
Toronto, Ontario, June 29, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
and
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The Plaintiff, Ms. Collins, appeals an order of Prothonotary Milczynski dismissing Ms. Collins’ motion for access to the contents of the Court’s file relating to previous proceedings she had instituted. Ms. Collins maintains that Prothonotary Milczynski erred by overlooking the fact that the file does not contain orders in respect of previous motions she had presented and, further, that she has been denied access to a transcript of the proceedings on those motions, which had been heard by Justice Elizabeth Heneghan in November 2009.
[2]
At the
time Prothonotary Milczynski dealt with Ms. Collins’ motion, a transcript of
the proceedings before Justice Heneghan had not yet been prepared. I have
reviewed the transcript and, indeed, as Ms. Collins contends, there were two
motions before Justice Heneghan the outcome of which was not explicitly
reflected in the Court file. However, as is clear from the transcript (see
Annex) both motions were dismissed by Justice Heneghan from the bench. Strictly
speaking, then, Prothonotary Milczynski was incorrect (through no fault of her
own) when she stated that Ms. Collins’ motions had been dealt with in the
decision Justice Heneghan issued in March 2010 in respect of a motion of the
defendant.
[3]
As for the
transcript, Ms. Collins now has a copy. While she is concerned about the
accuracy of it, I have no evidence before me suggesting that it does not
reflect the proceedings before Justice Heneghan.
[4] Accordingly, I will grant Ms. Collins’ appeal in part and return the matter to Prothonotary Milczynski to make such order as she feels appropriate in the circumstances. Given that the appeal was unopposed, there is no order as to costs.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1. The appeal is granted in part. The matter is referred back to Prothonotary Milczynski.
2. There is no order as to costs.
Judge
ANNEX
[…]