Date:
20071221
Docket:
A-455-07
Citation: 2007 FCA 411
Present:
Trudel J.A.
BETWEEN:
BUREAU D'ÉTUDES STRATÉGIQUES ET
TECHNIQUES
EN
ÉCONOMIQUE (BESTE)
Applicant
and
THE
CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Respondent
REASONS
FOR ORDER
TRUDEL
J.A.
[1]
Three
motions are submitted for an arbitration decision as part of an application for
judicial review against the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)
commenced by the applicant (see an order dated November 28, 2007, which
substituted the CIDA for the Attorney General of Canada).
The respondent’s
motion to strike
[2]
The
respondent is asking for paragraphs 18 to 144 of the applicant’s affidavit to
be struck on the grounds that they represent the applicant’s legal argument. The
applicant acknowledges this fact and offers to replace paragraphs 18 to 144 of
its affidavit with the following two factual statements:
[translation]
18. On
September 5, 2007, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) filed its
decision and reasons;
19. On
October 5, 2007, BESTE filed an application for judicial review and served the
stakeholders.
The applicant’s consent, given by
its owner and operator, does not bring the motion to an end because some
exhibits were filed to support the contested paragraphs.
[3]
More
specifically, the respondent is asking to have exhibits 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10
withdrawn. Inter alia, it claims that exhibits 4, 7, and 8 were not a part of
the record before the Tribunal during the review of the complaints that gave
rise to this case.
(a) Exhibits P-4, P-7 and
P-8
[4]
Exhibit
P-4 summarily defines set theory. Statements in the affidavit that refer to
this exhibit favour its exclusion. It supports one of the applicant’s
arguments.
[5]
Exhibits
P-7 and P-8 were not before the Tribunal. They are excluded from the record.
(b) Exhibit P-5
[6]
Exhibit
P-5 is an order by the CITT on May 29, 2007, between the same parties. Exhibit
P-2, to which the applicant refers at paragraph 14 of its affidavit, is its
complaint record filed with the CITT numbered PR-2007-10. It is suspected that
the decision under Exhibit P-5 is included therein. If not, the applicant is
authorized to include it in the exhibit. As a result, exhibit P-5 will
henceforth be a part of P-2.
(c) Exhibits P-9 and P-10
[7]
Exhibits
P-9 and P-10 are not struck from the record. They are announced at points 4 and
6 of the application notice. Their relevance will be evaluated on merit.
[8]
The
applicant will be authorized to file a new affidavit that is purged of the
references to the struck exhibits and that complies with the order attached to
these reasons.
The respondent’s
motion for a confidentiality order
[9]
The
respondent’s motion will be allowed because the Court is satisfied that it is
necessary to maintain the confidentiality of these documents filed with the
CITT, notwithstanding the public’s interest in open and accessible court
proceedings.
The applicant’s
motion to vary
[10]
An
earlier motion by the applicant through which it requested permission to
represent itself was dismissed by an order issued on November 28, 2007. Following
this order, a motion proposing to change the style of cause was submitted. Mr.
Jean-Marc Bergevin would henceforth be the applicant in this case. He would
thereby be able to represent himself because he claims he does not have the
financial resources to retain the services of counsel for the current applicant,
of which—I would like to reiterate—he is the owner and operator.
[11]
In
the Tribunal Record, it is noted that Mr. Bergevin was the complainant, whereas
the impugned decision designates the present applicant as the complainant.
[12]
The
Bureau d’études stratégiques et techniques en économique is a proprietorship
exclusively operated by Mr. Bergevin. It does not have any employees. The
respondent does not object to the application.
[13]
The
motion will be granted without costs.
“Johanne
Trudel”
Email this Content