Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Seifert, 2003 FC 897

Date: 20030722

Docket: T-2016-01

Citation No.: 2003 FC 897

BETWEEN:

   THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                      Plaintiff

                                                    - and -

                                      MICHAEL SEIFERT

                                                                                                  Defendant

                     REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

HUGESSEN J.

[1]    By this motion filed on February 20, 2003, the defendant in these citizenship revocation proceedings seeks, inter alia, particulars of the statement of claim which was filed on November 13, 2001. The defendant has already pleaded in detail and at length to the statement of claim and has filed a counterclaim. The motion is not accompanied by an affidavit and is thus not supported by anything other than counsel's assertion to the effect that the requested particulars are necessary.

[2]    By an order issued on March 6, 2003, I directed that that part of the motion which sought particulars should proceed in accordance with Rule 369. The relevant part of the order reads:

1) The portion of the defendant's motion filed on February 20, 2003 dealing with particulars will be dealt with in writing. Plaintiff shall serve and file his submissions by March 20, 2003. Defendant has until March 31, 2003 to serve and file a reply.

[3]    The Crown duly and timely filed its submissions in opposition to the motion. As of July 9, 2003, on which date a hearing on another aspect of the defendant's motion took place, the defendant had still not responded to those submissions in compliance with the March 6 order; I then indicated to Mr. Christie that he should do so at the latest by Friday, July 11, 2003. Other than to re-assert, without argument, that the particulars are necessary, the new submissions add nothing to the material already before me.

[4]                 I can see no basis on which I should order particulars. Quite apart from the fact of the motion being out of time and not in compliance with the Rules, it is clear that the defendant does not require them in order to plead to the statement of claim for he has already done so. Since that time, the Crown has made voluminous document production and I have now scheduled oral discoveries to take place in October and November 2003. In my view, those discoveries and the documents already produced by the Crown will afford ample opportunity to the defendant to fill in any gaps in his knowledge of the case he has to meet and will do so in a more efficient and less costly manner than the production of formal statements of particulars.

                                                  ORDER

The motion is dismissed.

                                                                                                           Judge                                

Ottawa, Ontario

July 22, 2003

                                       FEDERAL COURT

NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD

COURT FILE NO.:                   T-2016-01

STYLE OF CAUSE:                  The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v.

Michael Seifert

MOTION IN WRITING PURSUANT TO RULE 369

REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HUGESSEN

DATED:                                      July 22, 2003                             

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:

Barney Brucker                                                    FOR PLAINTIFF

Douglas Christie                                                  FOR DEFENDANT

SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD:

Morris A. Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada                   FOR PLAINTIFF

Mr. Douglas Christie

Victoria, British Columbia                                    FOR DEFENDANT