Sweet v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court headnote
Sweet v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2001-10-01 Neutral citation 2001 FCT 1079 File numbers T-700-01 Decision Content Date: 20011001 Docket: T-700-01 Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 1079 Toronto, Ontario, Monday the 1st day of October, 2001 PRESENT: Peter A.K. Giles, Esquire Associate Senior Prothonotary BETWEEN: JAMES A. SWEET Applicant -and- THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, THE CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA, THE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS, LUCIE McCLUNG, FRED TOBIN, JAN LOOMAN, MAURICE GIROUX, BELINDA ROSCOE, and MICK KER Respondents REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER GILES A.S.P. [1] By the motion before me, the Respondents seek to file a complete copy of Jan Looman's responses to questions asked in a written cross-examination. This will be granted. The moving party also seeks to strike certain questions asked in the written cross-examinations of two persons whose affidavits have been filed in support of the moving party. The responding Applicant has indicated the need for an extension of time to file his response to the motion. This will be granted. [2] In her materials, the moving party has set out a table showing the questions and the grounds alleged to support the motion. The responding Applicant argues that more reasoning is required and claims he is unable to respond unless that is done. [3] The affidavits, the subject of the cross-examination, were filed in an application for a judicial review. The subject of that review is known t…
Read full judgment
Sweet v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2001-10-01 Neutral citation 2001 FCT 1079 File numbers T-700-01 Decision Content Date: 20011001 Docket: T-700-01 Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 1079 Toronto, Ontario, Monday the 1st day of October, 2001 PRESENT: Peter A.K. Giles, Esquire Associate Senior Prothonotary BETWEEN: JAMES A. SWEET Applicant -and- THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, THE CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA, THE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS, LUCIE McCLUNG, FRED TOBIN, JAN LOOMAN, MAURICE GIROUX, BELINDA ROSCOE, and MICK KER Respondents REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER GILES A.S.P. [1] By the motion before me, the Respondents seek to file a complete copy of Jan Looman's responses to questions asked in a written cross-examination. This will be granted. The moving party also seeks to strike certain questions asked in the written cross-examinations of two persons whose affidavits have been filed in support of the moving party. The responding Applicant has indicated the need for an extension of time to file his response to the motion. This will be granted. [2] In her materials, the moving party has set out a table showing the questions and the grounds alleged to support the motion. The responding Applicant argues that more reasoning is required and claims he is unable to respond unless that is done. [3] The affidavits, the subject of the cross-examination, were filed in an application for a judicial review. The subject of that review is known to the Applicant whether or not a question is relevant can be deduced from that knowledge. The matter of whether a question is abusive can be deduced from reading the question itself. In the context of the facts alleged in the application materials. I note also that the responding party has in fact responded to the moving party's motion. [4] I have read the materials filed and conclude that all the questions sought to be struck from the cross-examination of Jan Looman should be struck for at least the reasons set forth by counsel for the moving party in the table mentioned above. [5] With regard to the questions put to Tom Preston it is my view that questions 28 and 39-44 could be relevant to credibility and should be answered. The rest of the questions challenged by the moving party should be struck for at least the reasons set out in the record. ORDER 1. The time is extended to validate the filing of the responding Applicant's responding material. 2. The challenged questions from the cross-examination of Jan Looman are ordered struck out. 3. Questions 28 and 39-44 of the questions put to Tom Preston are ordered answered by October 19th, 2001. 4. The remainder of the questions put to Tom Preston which were challenged are ordered struck out. 5. All other steps in the proceeding are to be completed in the times mentioned in the Rules measured from October 19th, 2001. "Peter A.K. Giles" A.S.P. Toronto, Ontario October 1, 2001 FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record COURT NO: T-700-01 STYLE OF CAUSE: JAMES A. SWEET Applicant -and- THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, THE CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA, THE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS, LUCIE McCLUNG, FRED TOBIN, JAN LOOMAN, MAURICE GIROUX, BELINDA ROSCOE, and MICK KER Respondents CONSIDERED AT TORONTO, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 369 REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: GILES A.S.P. DATED: MONDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2001 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY: Mr. James A. Sweet The Applicant on his own behalf Mr. Sadian G. Campbell For the Respondents SOLICITORS OF RECORD: James A. Sweet The Warkworth Penitentiary P.O. Box 760 Campbellford, Ontario K0L 1L0 The Applicant Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada For the Respondents FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA Date: 20011001 Docket:T-700-01 BETWEEN: JAMES A. SWEET Applicant -and- THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, THE CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA, THE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS, LUCIE McCLUNG, FRED TOBIN, JAN LOOMAN, MAURICE GIROUX, BELINDA ROSCOE, and MICK KER Respondents REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca