Fiducie de santé et de bien-être des chauffeurs d'autobus de la société de transport de la ville de Laval c. Canada (Minister of public works and government services), 2001 FCT 675

Date: 20010619

Docket: T-459-01

Neutral reference: 2001 FCT 675

MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC, JUNE 19, 2001

Before:            RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY

Between:

                         LA FIDUCIE DE SANTÉ ET DE BIEN-ÊTRE DES CHAUFFEURS D'AUTOBUS DE LA SOCIÉTÉ

DE TRANSPORT DE LA VILLE DE LAVAL

                                                                          and

RÉGIME DE RETRAITE DES EMPLOYÉS SYNDIQUÉS DE LA STL

                                                                                                                                           Plaintiffs

                                                                         AND

MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES OF CANADA,

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA ON BEHALF OF HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA

GARADEX INC.,

FIRST NATIONAL FUND CORPORATION

                                                                          and

CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY

                                                                                                                                       Defendants

                                       REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY:

[1]                 Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the additional affidavits of Mr. Gravel and Mr. Martel, which the plaintiffs would like to produce, have no place at this stage in the additional affidavits under Rule 312. Accordingly, those paragraphs are definitely not authorized.

[2]                 The purpose of the first four paragraphs in those affidavits is to lead up to or introduce what is contained in paragraph 5 of the affidavits. Essentially, therefore, it is paragraph 5 which represents a difficulty for the parties. In that paragraph, the plaintiffs seek to clarify the degree of assessment which the governmental defendants allegedly devoted to the plaintiffs' bid. That assessment was initially discussed by the governmental defendants in their affidavits. In that sense, the plaintiffs cannot ultimately be blamed for not dealing with the degree of assessment of their bid in their initial affidavits. Paragraph 5 of the additional affidavits of the Messrs. Gravel and Martel therefore appeared to put forward the facts relating to an aspect of the dispute between the parties, namely the assessment of the plaintiffs' bid.

[3]                 Paragraph 5 is short and its introduction is not likely to derail the discussion in which the parties are engaged.

[4]                 Consequently, I consider that at this stage the introduction of paragraph 5 would be likely to assist the Court on the merits of the case and will cause the governmental defendants no serious harm, especially in view of the schedule set out below. It is therefore in the interests of justice to allow service.

[5]                 The parties will therefore ensure that they comply with the following schedule.

[6]                 On or before June 22, 2001 the plaintiffs will serve the additional affidavits of Messrs. Gravel and Martel, attached to their motion, after deleting paras. 6 and 7 from those affidavits.

[7]                 Within five days of service of the said additional affidavits by the plaintiffs the governmental defendants will serve, if necessary, one or more additional affidavits in reply to the plaintiffs' additional affidavits.

[8]                 Within seven days of the latter service or expiry of the aforesaid deadline, the parties will proceed, if necessary, with cross-examination of any deponent on his additional affidavit.

[9]                 The plaintiffs' record under Rule 309 will be served and filed within ten days of the holding of the cross-examinations or expiry of the aforesaid deadline.

[10]            The defendants' records will comply with the provisions of Rule 310.

[11]            Within five days of receiving service of the defendants' records, the plaintiffs will serve and file their requisition for a hearing pursuant to Rule 314. This requisition may be accompanied by a joint written motion by the parties to obtain an early hearing date.

[12]            Costs of the instant motion to follow.

Certified true translation

Suzanne M. Gauthier, trad. a., LL.L.

                                              FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                       NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

COURT FILE No.:                                     T-459-01

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                   LA FIDUCIE DE SANTÉ ET DE BIEN-ÊTRE DES CHAUFFEURS D'AUTOBUS DE LA SOCIÉTÉ DE TRANSPORT DE LA VILLE DE LAVAL

and

RÉGIME DE RETRAITE DES EMPLOYÉS SYNDIQUÉS DE LA STL

                                                                                                                                           Plaintiffs

AND

MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES OF CANADA,

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA ON BEHALF OF HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA

GARADEX INC.,

FIRST NATIONAL FUND CORPORATION

and

CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY

                                                                                                                                       Defendants

PLACE OF HEARING:                           Montréal, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING:                               June 11, 2001

REASONS FOR ORDER BY: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY    

DATE OF REASONS FOR ORDER:    June 19, 2001

APPEARANCES:

Jean-François Cloutier                                  for the plaintiffs

Pierre Salois                                                   for the defendants the Attorney General of Canada, Minister of Public Works and Canada Customs and Revenue Agency

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Desjardins, Ducharme, Stein, Monast          for the plaintiffs

Montréal, Quebec

Morris Rosenberg                                        for the defendants the Attorney General of

Deputy Attorney General of Canada            Canada, Minister of Public Works and Canada Customs and Revenue Agency

Fasken, Martineau, DuMoulin                      for the defendants Garadex Inc. and national

Montréal, Quebec                                        Fund Corporation