Babich v. Canada

Babich v. Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2011-02-16
Neutral citation
2011 FCA 59
File numbers
A-341-10, A-342-10
Decision Content
Federal Court of Appeal
Cour d'appel fédérale
Date: 20110216
Dockets: A-341-10
A-342-10
Citation: 2011 FCA 59
Present: NOËL J.A.
Docket: A-341-10
BETWEEN:
EARL BABICH
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Docket: A-342-10
BETWEEN:
ABLE ENTERPRISES LTD.
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties.
Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on February 16, 2011.
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: NOËL J.A.
Federal Court of Appeal
Cour d'appel fédérale
Date: 20110216
Dockets: A-341-10
A-342-10
Citation: 2011 FCA 59
Present: NOËL J.A.
Docket: A-341-10
BETWEEN:
EARL BABICH
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Docket: A-342-10
BETWEEN:
ABLE ENTERPRISES LTD.
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
NOËL J.A.
[1] I am seized in file A-342-10 with a motion by the corporate appellant to authorize Mr. Earl Babich to represent it as well as motions by the appellants in both files A-342-10 and A-342-10 to settle the contents of the appeal book.
[2] Dealing with the first motion, the respondent opposes the order sought because the evidence of impecuniosity is not sufficient and the appellant has not demonstrated that this matter will proceed expeditiously.
[3] Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the appellant is unable to pay for a lawyer and that accordingly alternative representation must be considered. Although the absence of legal representation may result in procedural complications, Mr. Babich is authorized as of right to act on his own behalf, and it seems logical that he should also be authorized to act on behalf of the corporate appellant. An order will be issued accordingly.
[4] Turning to the appeal book, the respondent proposes to include the pleadings, all the evidence tendered by the parties, as well as all evidentiary and jurisdictional rulings made by the Trial Judge. The respondent wishes to add a number of documents which were not in evidence at trial.
[5] I am satisfied that there are no circumstances in this case which would justify a departure from the generally accepted rule which is to restrict the contents of the appeal book to the material that was before the Trial Judge. The appeal book will accordingly be constituted by the documents proposed by the respondent and listed at paragraph 2 of its respective motion records filed November 12, 2010.
“Marc Noël”
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-341-10
STYLE OF CAUSE: EARL BABICH and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: Noël J.A.
DATED: February 16, 2011
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Earl Babich
FOR THE APPELLANT
(SELF-REPRESENTED)
Raj Grewal
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
N/A
FOR THE APPELLANT
(SELF-REPRESENTED)
MYLES J. KIRVAN
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE RESPONDENT
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-342-10
STYLE OF CAUSE: ABLE ENTERPRISES LTD. and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: Noël J.A.
DATED: February 16, 2011
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Earl Babich
FOR THE APPELLANT
(SELF-REPRESENTED)
Raj Grewal
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
N/A
FOR THE APPELLANT
(SELF-REPRESENTED)
MYLES J. KIRVAN
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE RESPONDENT