Sweet v. Canada (Attorney General)L

Sweet v. Canada (Attorney General)L
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2001-10-15
Neutral citation
2001 FCT 1116
File numbers
T-701-01
Decision Content
Date: 20011015
Docket: T-701-01
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 1116
Toronto, Ontario, Monday the 15th 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, BRENDAN REYNOLDS, PETER WHITE, JOHN ODDIE,
LIZ ESHKROD, ANTHONY LANDSFORD, TERI BURT,
EAGLE ORTHOTICS, DR. C.W. DANBY
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
GILES A.S.P.:
[1] The Applicant, a prisoner, has foot trouble. A doctor to whom he was referred reached to conclusion that the problem might be caused by leather and recommended trying running shoes and directed that the Applicant be issued with canvass or vinyl shoes or boots.
[2] The Applicant seeks various reliefs which appear to be directed to supporting the doctor's diagnosis and directions with regard to foot wear and restraining any non- compliant actions by the prison's staff and in addition seeks damages.
[3] The Applicant is conducting cross-examinations in writing of two of the Respondents' witnesses whose affidavits have been filed. The Applicant posed a number of questions which the Respondents seek to strike by the motion before me.
[4] The parties both seek time to complete the cross-examination.
[5] The Respondent has filed a motion to strike questions citing as grounds that the questions are irrelevant, abusive, or improper. The Applicant claims he is unable to respond to the motion because no reasons are submitted in support of the grounds. The principal objection that has been made by the Respondent is that a question is not relevant. The Applicant knows what his application is about. He can certainly determine what the Respondent means when irrelevance is claimed. He can also respond to an allegation that a question is abusive. Some of the questions were so obviously intended to be abusive that is to say, a waste of the Court and everyone else's time, that I do not believe the Applicant cannot identify them.
[6] The third ground alleged by the Respondent is that the questions are improper. I note that no question is challenged only because it is improper. However, the word improper does not have exclusively a legal meaning and the Applicant can always resort to a dictionary to find the meaning of the word.
[7] In my view, the Applicant has had the opportunity and has the ability to have responded and to some extent he has done so. In the face of such patent, irrelevance, abuse and impropriety I have no hesitation in proceeding to dispose of this motion at this time.
[8] The Applicant suggests the questions may be relevant to credibility. If a question or its possible answers would be relevant to credibility it was certainly open to the Applicant to indicate in what way a question alleged to be irrelevant is relevant without being improper or abusive. Having read all of the questions I am on the view that all the questions which have been challenged should be struck out for one or more of the grounds alleged by the Respondents in the notice of motion.
ORDER
1. All questions challenged are struck out, that is to say, the questions identified in Schedules A and B to the notice of motion; in addition,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
2. That the time for completion of cross-examinations is extended to Friday, October 26th, 2001 and all other times to be measured therefrom.
"Peter A.K. Giles"
A.S.P.
Toronto, Ontario
October 15, 2001
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: T-701-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: JAMES A. SWEET
Applicant
-and-
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
THE CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA, THE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS, LUCIE McCLUNG, BRENDAN REYNOLDS, PETER WHITE, JOHN ODDIE, LIZ ESHKROD, ANTHONY LANDSFORD, TERI BURT, EAGLE ORTHOTICS, DR. C.W. DANBY
Respondents
CONSIDERED AT TORONTO, PURSUANT TO RULE 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURT RULES 1998.
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: GILES A.S.P.
DATED: MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2001
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:James A. Sweet
The Applicant on his own behalf
Sadian G. Campbell
For the Respondents
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: James A. Sweet
C/o Warkworth Institution
P.O. Box 760, County Road 29
Campbellford, Ontario
K0L 1L0
For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General
For the Respondents
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20011015
Docket: T-701-01
BETWEEN:
JAMES A. SWEET
Applicant
-and-
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, THE CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA, THE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS,
LUCIE McCLUNG, BRENDAN REYNOLDS, PETER WHITE, JOHN ODDIE, LIZ ESHKROD, ANTHONY LANDSFORD, TERI BURT, EAGLE ORTHOTICS, DR. C.W. DANBY
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER