Date: 20010620
Docket: T-253-01
Citation: 2001FCT691
BETWEEN:
GLEN DANIEL GORDON
Applicant
- and -
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA,
THE COMMISSIONER OF THE ROYAL
CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE and
THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER
HARGRAVE, P.:
[1] Earlier this Spring counsel for the Applicant, encountering logistical problems in having an affidavit sworn in Aklavik, sought an extension of time within which to serve and file his client's affidavit, however no draft affidavit was provided. Thus I could not measure the intrinsic worth of the affidavit, a test set out in the case law, along with the need that there be a reason for the delay.
[2] So as to do justice between the parties I gave leave for the filing, in support of the present Motion, of a brief supplemental affidavit, sworn by counsel, to which might be attached the Applicant's proposed affidavit. The material has now arrived, consisting of the three page affidavit of counsel and a one page affidavit of the Applicant, endorsing what is set out by counsel.
[3] I accept that a reason for the delay and thus the inability to meet the filing date for affidavits, giving the benefit of some doubt and leaving aside the use of fax and the likely availability of a Commissioner for Oaths in Aklavik as an answer to any logistical problems, has been met to some degree. However, the intrinsic worth of the affidavits of counsel and of the Applicant, measured in terms of relevance, admissibility and potential use by the Court (see the cases referred to at page 232 of Aircraft Technical Publishers v. ATP Aero Training Products (1999) 150 F.T.R. 230) is non-existent: more would be gained from the record as it presently exists and from the submissions of counsel.
[4] Dealing further with the worth of the affidavits, Plaintiff's counsel's affidavit, has pointed out by counsel for the Respondent, consists of submissions going to a breach of fundamental justice, going to errors in law and going to errors based on faulty information or jurisdiction. All of the affidavit appears to be either in the nature of argument, including argument based on the Record, except, possibly, allegations of improper discussion taking place between the RCMP Adjudication Board and an RCMP investigator, without counsel in attendance, the withholding of evidence by the investigator and the impatience or intolerance exhibited by the Board's chairman toward the Applicant and his counsel. However the affidavit, even here, has little or no intrinsic worth for three reasons. First, the allegations are not particularly specific. Second, while the allegations made by counsel are adopted by the Applicant, they are not specifically attributed to the Applicant and little appears to be susceptible to any useful cross-examination. Third, the allegations are directed against the RCMP Adjudication Board decision of 6 August, 1999, rather than against the decision sought to be reviewed in the present Notice of Application for Judicial Review, the decision of the Commissioner of the RCMP, communicated 14 January, 2001.
[5] I would note that there is no requirement that an Applicant file affidavits in support of a judicial review application. The present instance may be one of the rare instances in which the documents making up the Record speak for themselves and where the Applicant can add nothing by way of affidavit evidence.
[6] The extension of time within which to file affidavits in support of the judicial review application is denied. The affidavits filed in support of this Motion, both dated 9 May, 2001, are limited to this Motion and are not to appear in the Applicant's Rule 309 Record.
[7] Costs of this Motion to the Respondents, to be taxed at the end of the day.
"John Hargrave"
Prothonotary
June 20, 2001
Vancouver, British Columbia
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-253-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: Glen Daniel Gordon v. The Solicitor General of Canada,
The Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police and The Deputy Attorney General of Canada
REASONS FOR ORDER OF Mr. John A. Hargrave, Prothonotary.
DATED: June 20, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Bradley W. Enge
(by way of Rule 369 Motion in Writing) For Applicant
Barry Benkendorf
(by way of Rule 369 Motion in Writing) For Respondents
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Bradley W. Enge For Applicant
Morris Rosenberg For Respondents
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content