Laliberte v. Canada, 2003 FC 1282

Date: 20031104

Docket: T-1890-02

Citation: 2003 FC 1282

Ottawa, Ontario, November 4, 2003

Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice François Lemieux

BETWEEN:

                                                              MICHEL LALIBERTE

                                                            CORRECTION OFFICER

                                                                                                                                                          Plaintiff

                                                                                 and

                                                        HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

                                                                                                                                                      Defendant

                                               REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

[1]                 In this action by motion filed pursuant to section 369 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 ("the Rules"), the plaintiff is appealing the decision by Prothonotary Morneau on October 6, 2003.

[2]                 In that decision Prothonotary Morneau dismissed the plaintiff's motion on August 26, 2003, on the ground stated by the defendant-respondent, who had submitted that the applicant's motion dated August 26, 2003, was an attempt [TRANSLATION] "indirectly to reopen questions discussed at the [pre-trial] conference and disposed of in the prothonotary's order [of August 22, 2003]".

[3]                 The prothonotary's order of August 22, 2003, indicated the result of the pre-trial conference, established the points to be decided at the hearing and set out the future procedure for conduct of the action.

[4]                 The plaintiff, who represented himself, maintained that he filed his motion of August 26, 2003, at the invitation of the prothonotary himself during the pre-trial conference that took place on August 19, 2003.

[5]                 It would appear that during that pre-trial conference the plaintiff sought compliance with Rule 257 and was considering the possibility of relying on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[6]                 I have carefully read the plaintiff's motion filed on August 26, 2003. That motion did not seek and did not formulate any order which the prothonotary should make.

[7]                 In these circumstances, the prothonotary and the defendant correctly interpreted his notice of motion filed on August 26, 2003, as an indirect means of re-opening the questions decided at the pre-trial conference and disposed of by the prothonotary's order.

                                                                            ORDER

This appeal from the decision by Prothonotary Morneau on October 6, 2003, is dismissed with costs.

Certified true translation

Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.

                                                                 FEDERAL COURT

                                                          SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                      T-1890-02

STYLE OF CAUSE:                     MICHEL LALIBERTÉ v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

WRITTEN MOTION CONSIDERED WITHOUT APPEARANCE BY PARTIES        

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: LEMIEUX J.

DATE OF REASONS:                 NOVEMBER 4, 2003

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:

MICHEL LALIBERTÉ                                      THE PLAINTIFF FOR HIMSELF

MARC RIBEIRO                                               FOR THE DEFENDANT         

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

MICHEL LALIBERTÉ                                      THE PLAINTIFF FOR HIMSELF

Drummondville, Quebec

MORRIS ROSENBERG                                   FOR THE DEFENDANT

Deputy Attorney General of Canada