Date: 20000222
Docket: IMM-130-00
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC, THE 22nd DAY OF EBRUARY 2000
PRESENT: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
Between:
MOHAMED TAYSEER ADAS
MALAKA ISSA EL-MAZINI
NOOR TAYSEER ADAS
NADER TAYSEER ADAS
NASEEM TAYSEER ADAS
NOHA TAYSEER ADAS
NAEL TAYSEER ADAS
Applicants
AND
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
Motion by the applicants under article 246 of the C.P.C. requesting a disavowal of the actions of their solicitor of record and an extension of time to prepare a new memorandum and supporting affidavits.
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
[1] This is a motion by the applicants under article 246 of the C.P.C. requesting a disavowal of the actions of their solicitor of record and an extension of time to prepare a new memorandum and supporting affidavits.
[2] It is settled law that for such a motion to be allowed, supporting evidence filed must meet three conditions: lack of authorization, lack of ratification and the prejudicial character of the disavowed act (Lansdowne Financial Services Ltd. v. Binladen Telecommunications Co., [1992] R.D.J. 598 (C.A.); Banque Nationale de Paris (Canada) v. Dantex Woollen Co., J.E. 93-266 (C.S.); 115826 Canada Inc. v. Tassé, J.E. 93-808 (C.S.); Edifico Inc. v. Gaudette, J.E. 92-937 (C.S.); Rivard v. Construction Concorde Inc., [1989] R.D.J. 319 (C.S.); Allard v. Hamel, [1980] C.S. 752).
[3] In the case at bar, the only affidavit submitted in evidence clearly does not demonstrate the element of prejudice since paragraph 14 merely expresses an apprehension of prejudice without identifying the exact places in the memorandum to be disavowed and where these prejudicial elements can be found. Paragraph 14 reads as follows:
[TRANSLATION]
14. We did not have the benefit of independent and expert advice before the documents were
filed and we fear that the memorandum and affidavits contain judicial admissions
that could be prejudicial to us.
[4] Moreover, even if the applicants' motion were treated as a proper motion for an extension of time to file their memorandum, the evidence submitted by them does not provide us with the usual explanations for such a motion. Among others things, the affidavit filed gives no reasons to account for the fact that even though their dispute with the attorney they wish to disavow arose before January 10, 2000, the applicants did not consult their special attorney until February 7,
2000, a few days before their time ran out to file the memorandum they now disavow.
[5] For these reasons, this motion is dismissed.
Richard Morneau
Prothonotary
Certified true translation
Peter Douglas
Federal Court of Canada
Trial Division
Date: 20000222
Docket: IMM-130-00
Between:
MOHAMED TAYSEER ADAS
MALAKA ISSA EL-MAZINI
NOOR TAYSEER ADAS
NADER TAYSEER ADAS
NASEEM TAYSEER ADAS
NOHA TAYSEER ADAS
NAEL TAYSEER ADAS
Applicants
AND
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER
1
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| COURT FILE NO.: IMM-130-00 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: MOHAMED TAYSEER ADAS |
MALAKA ISSA EL-MAZINI
NOOR TAYSEER ADAS
NADER TAYSEER ADAS
NASEEM TAYSEER ADAS
NOHA TAYSEER ADAS
NAEL TAYSEER ADAS
Applicants
AND
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
| PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec |
| DATE OF HEARING: February 21, 2000 |
REASONS FOR PROTHONOTARY RICHARD MORNEAU'S ORDER
| DATE OF REASONS FOR ORDER: February 22, 2000 |
APPEARANCES:
| Annie Kenane for the applicants |
| Hugues Langlais for the applicants |
S. Drapeau, articling student
| Michel Pépin for the respondent |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Annie Kenane for the applicants |
Montréal, Quebec
| Hugues Langlais for the applicants |
Montréal, Quebec
| Morris Rosenberg for the respondent |
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
Email this Content