Canada (Attorney General) v. Parent

Canada (Attorney General) v. Parent
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2006-03-17
Neutral citation
2006 FC 353
File numbers
T-1949-05
Decision Content
Date: 20060317
Docket: T-1949-05
Citation: 2006 FC 353
Montréal, Quebec, March 17, 2006 PRESENT: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
ALAIN PARENT
and
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMISSION
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] UPON the applicant’s motion to strike the respondent’s affidavit, filed by the respondent on December 28, 2005, under Rule 307 of the Federal Courts Rules (the Rules) in the context of an application for judicial review filed by the applicant against a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (the applicant’s motion to strike);
[2] GIVEN that in response to the applicant’s motion to strike, the respondent filed a motion record containing the following:
1. a motion for an extension of time to reply to the applicant’s motion to strike (the respondent’s motion to extend);
2. the objection on the merits to the applicant’s motion to strike;
[3] GIVEN that it would be appropriate to deal first with the respondent’s motion to extend, and that in that matter—despite the various argument raised by the applicant in his reply challenging the extension—the short time involved, the interest of justice and the desire to avoid an overzealous application of the strict requirements of the law all lead this Court to allow, without costs, the respondent’s motion for an extension of time;
[4] GIVEN that this step has been taken, the Court may now consider the merits of the applicant’s motion to strike;
[5] HAVING CONSIDERED the respective positions of the parties on the merits of this motion, the Court allows the applicant’s motion, costs in the cause, as follows:
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS that:
1. Subject to point 2 below, the respondent’s entire affidavit, filed December 28, 2005, be struck;
2. The respondent nevertheless be granted leave to serve and file within twenty (20) days of these reasons for order and order an affidavit under Rule 307, which is to contain only the relevant evidence that was before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal when it rendered the decision that is now subject to judicial review;
3. The computation of the other relevant time limits in the Rules begin when the new affidavit mentioned in point 2 is served or when the time limit for filing the affidavit has expired;
4. Both parties make an effort in the future to avoid having the filing of the respondent’s evidence on the merits be subject to another interlocutory motion.
“Richard Morneau”
Prothonotary
Certified true translation
Francie Gow
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1949-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
and
ALAIN PARENT and CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMISSION
WRITTEN MOTION DECIDED IN MONTRÉAL WITHOUT APPEARANCE BY PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PROTHONOTARY MORNEAU
DATED: March 17, 2006
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
Mariève Sirois-Vaillancourt
FOR THE APPLICANT
Josée Potvin
FOR THE RESPONDENT ALAIN PARENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
John H. Sims, QC
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE APPLICANT
Fradette, Gagnon, Têtu, Le Bel, Potvin
FOR THE RESPONDENT ALAIN PARENT