Date: 20001128
Docket: T-764-00
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC, NOVEMBER 28, 2000
BEFORE: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
Between:
BELL CANADA
Plaintiff
AND
MADELEINE B. GOSSELIN
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
[1] The matters which the plaintiff is seeking to correct by this motion are not in the circumstances matters which, if the Court rules in the plaintiff's favour on the merits, could be seen as so clearly improper as to require intervening in the process of an application for judicial review (see observations of Strayer J. in Bull (David) Laboratories (Canada) Inc. v. Pharmacia Inc. et al. (1994), 176 N.R. 48, at 54-5). Any motion to strike in connection with an application for judicial review must be an exception, so as to promote one of the primary purposes of the application, namely to move it along to trial on the merits as quickly as possible.
[2] As Strayer J. said in Pharmacia:
. . . [T]he focus in judicial review is on moving the application along to the hearing stage as quickly as possible. This ensures that objections to the originating notice can be dealt with promptly in the context of consideration of the merits of the case.
(See also Merck Frosst Canada Inc. et al. v. Minister of National Health and Welfare et al. (1994), 58 C.P.R. (3d) 245, at 248, and Glaxo Wellcome Inc. et al. v. Minister of National Health and Welfare et al., an unreported judgment of this Court on September 6, 1996, case T-793-96.)
[3] I think the principles that emerge apply to this situation, even though here the plaintiff is seeking only a partial striking out of the defendant's affidavit, not completely striking out the principal application. I would even say that Pharmacia applies especially here, and so a fortiori, since the purpose is only to strike a few paragraphs.
[4] I think that it is in its Rule 309 record that the plaintiff should raise the points mentioned in the present motion.
[5] The request to strike in this motion is accordingly dismissed.
[6] Additionally, the motion is allowed in part to grant the plaintiff additional time to file its Rule 309 record. To this end, it must serve and file the said record on or before December 18, 2000.
[7] This motion is accordingly allowed in part.
[8] Costs to follow.
Richard Morneau
Prothonotary
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
Federal Court of Canada
Trial Division
Date: 20001128
Docket: T-764-00
Between:
BELL CANADA
Plaintiff
AND
MADELEINE B. GOSSELIN
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE No.:
STYLE OF CAUSE:
T-764-00
BELL CANADA
Plaintiff
AND
MADELEINE B. GOSSELIN
Respondent
WRITTEN MOTION CONSIDERED IN MONTRÉAL WITHOUT APPEARANCE BY PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
DATE OF REASONS FOR ORDER:November 28, 2000
WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS BY:
| Suzanne Thibodeau
|
|
for the plaintiff
|
| |
|
|
| Denis Jacques
|
|
for the respondent
|
| |
|
|
| Heenan Blaikie
Montréal, Quebec
|
|
for the plaintiff
|
| |
|
|
| Grondin, Poudrier, Bernier
Québec, Quebec
|
|
for the respondent
|
Email this Content