Date: 20080129
Dockets: T-1265-07
T-1315-07
T-1317-07
T-1318-07
Citation: 2008
FC 119
Toronto, Ontario, January 29, 2008
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes
BETWEEN:
WILLIAM
A. JOHNSON
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
These
Reasons and Order deal with appeals brought by the Applicant in four different
proceedings, all related, from a decision of Prothonotary Aalto in all
proceedings, dated October 5, 2007. One Order, applicable to all four proceedings
T-1265-07; T-1315-07; T-1317-07; and T-1318-07 was given by the Prothonotary
and one set of Reasons of Order applicable to all four is given here. The
appeals will be dismissed with costs in the sum of $50 in each proceeding that
is, a total of $200.00 payable to the Respondent by the Applicant.
[2]
The Order
is question arose from a motion in each proceeding made by the Applicant for
the following relief:
1. Directions concerning the
procedure to be followed under r.467 of the Federal Courts Rules for the
purpose of r. 466(c); alternatively, an Order in the nature.
2. In the alternative, an Order
requiring PAULINE McGEE and the Warden of Warkworth Institution (“WI”) and each
or either of them to:
a) appear before a
judge at a time and stipulated in the Order;
b) be prepared to hear
proof of the act with which she is charged; and
c) be prepared to
present any defence that one may have.
3. An Order extending the time
usually provided under Part 5 of the Rules for the steps remaining to be
completed there under.
4. Costs in the cause.
5. Such further and other relief
as the applicant may advise and this Honourable Court deems just and
appropriate.
The matter was dealt with in
writing and the Prothonotary made the following Order:
THIS COURT ORDERS that
1. The Applicant is
granted an extension of time to November 9, 2007 within which to amend the
Notices of Application in this proceeding and in T-1265-07, T-1315-07 and
T-1318-07.
2. The Applicant is
granted a further extension of time to November 30, 2007 to serve and file the
Applicant’s Record in this proceeding and in T-1265-07, T-1315-07 and
T-1318-07.
3. The time for taking
subsequent steps in this proceeding is extended to run form the date of the
service of the Applicant’s Record on the Respondent in each proceeding.
4. This motion and the
companion motions in each of T-1265-07, T-1315-07 and T-1318-07 are otherwise
dismissed.
5. There shall be no costs of
these motions.
In his Reasons for making the
Order the Prothonotary said:
This matter is one of four actions (the
others being T-1265-07,
T-1315-07, T-1318-07) commenced by this
Applicant for relief relating to various decisions made by Corrections
Officers. This Order applies to each of these proceedings. By Order dated
August 24, 2007, the Applicant was granted leave to amend each of the Notices
of Application as noted in the Order. The Applicant seeks an extension of time
to complete the amendments and file the Application records. To do so he needs
his computer. However, he has managed to prepare this Motion Record and the
Motion Record in each of the Applications. Thus, he has access to the means to
complete the amendments and file the Applicants’ Records. An extension of time
will be granted. The alternative relief is dismissed and in the circumstances
all without costs.
[3]
Having
regard to the requests made by the Applicant in his motion the extension of
time requested was granted, no costs were ordered and the Prothonotary refused
to provide directions respecting Rule 466(c) and refused to require persons who
are not named as parties to appear before a judge in the manner requested.
[4]
A motion
for directions is discretionary and a refusal to provide directions is not a
matter vital to an issue in this case; there is no proper basis for
reconsideration of the Prothonotary’s order in that regard.
[5]
The
request that persons not party the action appear before a judge and hear proof
and present a defence clearly reflects a misunderstanding that the Applicant,
who is self-represented, has as to the Court process. A person who is not a
party to an action can only be subject to such proceedings in the nature of
contempt if that person has, in the course of the proceedings, conducted
themselves in a manner as set out in Rule 466. Rule 466 (c) relied upon by the
Applicant is a general provision which applies to conduct of an individual within
the context of the proceeding. It does not apply to prior conduct that may be
alleged as forming the basis of the cause of action. There is no evidence presented
on the motion to show that the named individuals conducted themselves in any
way that would come within Rule 466. The Prothonotary was correct in dismissing
this request.
[6]
I
appreciate that the Applicant is self-represented however, he should be careful
in making motions and taking steps that do not have a sound basis. For that
reason, I am assessing costs at a very modest level, $50.00 in each of the four
proceedings, against the Applicant.
ORDER
For the reasons given, THIS
COURT ORDERS that:
1. The motion appealing from the Orders of Prothonotary
Aalto dated October 5, 2007 are proceedings T-1265-07; T-1315-07; T-1317-07;
and T-1318-07 is dismissed.
2. The Respondent is entitled to costs in each of
the four proceedings in the sum of $50 each, totalling $200.00.
“Roger
T. Hughes”
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1265-07, T-1315-07,
T-1317-07,
T-1318-07
STYLE OF CAUSE: WILLIAM A. JOHNSON V. ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
CONSIDERED
AT TORONTO,
ONTARIO, MOTION IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
REASONS
FOR ORDER
AND
ORDER: HUGHES J.
DATED: JANUARY 29, 2008
WRITTEN
REPRESENTATIONS BY:
William
A. Johnson FOR THE APPLICANT
(Self-Represented)
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
William
A. Johnson
Brighton
Township, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT
(Self-Represented)
Email this Content