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”

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:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: