Giles
A.S.P.:—
These
proceedings
purport
to
have
been
commenced
by
an
originating
notice
of
motion
and
seek
an
order
in
the
nature
of
mandamus.
The
motion
before
me
is
an
interlocutory
motion
seeking
to
strike
the
originating
notice
of
motion
on
a
number
of
grounds.
In
connection
with
this
motion,
the
Crown
has
filed
two
affidavits.
A
notice
of
examination
has
been
served
on
each
of
the
affiants,
one
styled
in
the
Ontario
Court
and
one
in
this
Court.
Both
indicate
an
examination
is
to
take
place
at
the
offices
of
Alfred
E.
Devenport,
official
examiner.
There
is
no
official
examiner
in
this
Court
although
Mr.
Devenport
is
official
examiner
in
the
Ontario
court
system.
In
a
document
style
supplementary
submissions,
one
Hadi
Sarraf
states
that
the
affiants
did
not
attend
to
be
cross-examined
on
their
affidavits
and
submits
the
affidavits
should
be
prohibited
from
being
used.
Assuming
that
the
notices
of
examination
are
valid
despite
their
patent
deficiencies
and
that
a
request
for
cross-examination
has
been
refused,
the
affidavits
are
not
void
and
are
not
necessarily
ignored
but
will
be
given
a
much
lesser
weight
should
they
be
necessary
to
reach
the
conclusion
which
I
have
reached.
In
a
document
entitled
“submissions”
filed
on
April
8,
it
is
submitted
that
the
associate
senior
prothonotary,
inter
alia,
has
no
jurisdiction
to
grant
the
motion
of
the
respondent,
which
the
applicant
appears
to
think
is
one
for
mandamus.
The
motion
before
me
does
not
seek
mandamus
but
seeks
to
strike.
In
Iscar
Ltd.
v.
Karl
Hertel
GmbH.,
[1989]
3
F.C.
479
(F.C.T.D.),
it
was
pointed
out
that
a
prothonotary
has
jurisdiction
to
hear
motions
to
strike
a
claim.
Similarly,
a
prothonotary
may
dismiss
a
claim
for
want
of
prosecution.
The
Crown’s
submissions
draw
my
attention
to
the
case
of
495187
Ontario
Ltd.
v.
Minister
of
National
Revenue,
[1993]
2
C.T.C.
113,
94
D.T.C.
6229,
a
report
of
a
decision
in
the
Federal
Court
of
Appeal
wherein
it
was
implied
that
Hadi
Sarraf
was
not
a
solicitor.
There
is
no
statement
in
any
of
the
submissions
filed
alleging
that
Hadi
Sarraf
is
a
solicitor,
although
one
finds
such
words
as
counsel
below
his
signature,
and
solicitor
typed
below
his
name
on
documents
filed.
Rule
300(2)
requires
a
corporation
to
be
represented
by
a
solicitor
un-
less
the
Court,
in
special
circumstances,
grants
leave
for
the
corporation
to
be
represented
by
an
officer.
I
intend
therefore,
to
stay
this
proceeding
for
30
days
to
allow
Hadi
Sarraf
to
file
evidence
proving
that
he
is
a
solicitor
as
that
word
is
defined
in
subsection
11(3)
of
the
Federal
Court
Act
and
Rule
2
of
the
Federal
Court
Rules,
or
alternatively,
to
allow
a
solicitor
as
so
defined,
to
appear
on
the
record.
If
neither
of
these
alternatives
has
been
completed
by
July
15,
1994,
the
proceeding
started
by
the
originating
notice
of
motion
will
be
dismissed
for
want
of
prosecution.
Order
The
proceedings
started
by
the
originating
notice
of
motion
are
stayed
until
July
15,
1994.
If
on
or
before
that
date,
either
Hadi
Sarraf
has
not
filed
evidence
showing
that
he
is
a
solicitor,
as
that
word
is
defined
in
subsection
11(3)
of
the
Federal
Court
Act
and
Rule
2
of
the
Federal
Court
Rules,
or
a
solicitor
as
so
defined
has
not
gone
on
the
record,
the
originating
notice
of
motion
shall
be
deemed
to
have
been
dismissed
for
want
of
prosecution.
The
interlocutory
motion
before
me
is
otherwise
dismissed
without
prejudice
to
the
Crown’s
right
to
bring
on
a
similar
motion
after
July
15,
1994,
if
so
advised.
Motion
dismissed
Email this Content