Maljkovich v. Canada (Attorney General), docket T-80-98

Date: 19990507

Docket: T-80-98

BETWEEN:

     VLADO MALJKOVICH,

     Applicant,

     - and -

     THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

     representing the Correctional Service of Canada,

     the Commissioner of Corrections and

     the Institutional Head of the Warkworth Penitentiary,

     Respondent.

     REASONS FOR ORDER

MULDOON, J.

[1]      On March 24, 1999, a motion for leave to intervene, made returnable not by the applicant, but by Mr. Emile Marguerita Marcus Mennes, made specifically returnable before this judge at Warkworth Penitentiary (Institution) came on before Mr. Justice Teitelbaum by telephone conference call. This occurred after the applicant purportedly filed a motion record on January 15, 1999 which was signed by Mr. Mennes "Proposed Intervener in Person, THE CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA, Department of the Solicitor General, GOVERNMENT OF CANADA", a fanciful misrepresentation, if ever there was one. A respondent's motion record was filed on behalf of the Deputy Attorney General of Canada, on February 1, 1999. The true applicant, Mennes, seeks leave to intervene in the rôle of the applicant's solicitor and attorney.

[2]      Teitelbaum, J., after hearing the parties by telephone gave the following written direction, inter alia, "NO. Mr. Mennes cannot represent Vlado Maljkovich." That direction, which this judge affirms, is conclusive. The leave to intervene which Mr. Mennes seeks must be denied. He is more of an intruder than an intervener. Neither the true applicant, nor Mr. Mennes, has shown Mr. Mennes' proposed intervention to be necessary in order to advance the cause of justice. The Court finds merit in the respondent's motion record, and little, if any, in Mr. Mennes' motion record. There may be other matters, of which this judge is not seized, still outstanding. The applicant will have to get proper professional advice from a solicitor - by means of legal aid presumably - or figure out for himself his course of action - assuming it is not frivolous. In the meanwhile, as Teitelbaum, J. has emphasized, the application by Mennes, even if it be on behalf of the applicant is dismissed. The parties may speak to the matter of costs of the present proceedings before the judge who ultimately disposes of the matter.

[3]          Thus, the matter is concluded to this point as follows:

                                 Judge

Ottawa, Ontario

May 7, 1999