Date: 19990913
Docket: T-2993-90
BETWEEN:
CHANTAL PAPILLON and
RÉJEAN PLAMONDON,
Plaintiffs,
- and -
DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA,
Defendants,
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
Mis-en-cause.
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BLAIS J.
[1] The Court has before it an application by the plaintiffs to stay the scheduled hearing of the motion set down for September 20, 21 and 22, 1999.
[2] It appeared from the record that James A. Jerome A.C.J. had already ordered that this motion, dated January 22, 1998, be heard on November 3, 1998.
[3] It appeared from the record that as the result of an application to adjourn by the plaintiffs, John D. Richard peremptorily adjourned the hearing to April 12, 13 and 14, 1999, in accordance with an order dated October 27, 1998.
[4] Further to a new application, this time by counsel for the Department of Justice, John D. Richard A.C.J,. by an order dated February 16, 1999, adjourned the hearing of the motion to September 20, 1999.
[5] This is thus the third application to adjourn the case at bar.
[6] The Court notes that an order was made for the first time on January 22, 1998, setting the hearing for November 1998.
[7] It thus appears that since January 1998, the parties have known that the hearing was to take place shortly, and so should have been prepared for the said hearing, for over a year and a half.
[8] It has to be said that the attorneys Lavoie and Lepage showed very little professionalism to ensure that the case was effectively transferred. When counsel from a given firm leaves it is usual for that counsel"s clients to continue to give him their work, and this happened in 1991 when Ms. Lavoie changed law firms.
[9] It is also important to note that the plaintiffs still have an opportunity to be represented by the same counsel who have represented them for several years and they raised no reason for seeking replacement of their counsel, Lavoie and Lepage.
[10] As appears from a letter from Linda Lavoie dated June 23, 1999, it seems that the plaintiffs were Ms. Lavoie"s clients as far back as 1987 and that the action brought by the
Department of Indian Affairs was brought when she belonged to another law firm.
[11] The plaintiffs are entirely capable of being represented by their counsel who has represented them for ten years, Linda Lavoie.
[12] The plaintiffs gave no valid reason for changing counsel one week before their hearing and did not seem to be in any hurry to decide about other counsel.
[13] It is the plaintiffs who brought this action against the defendants and it is at their request that this Court on two occasions set aside three consecutive days to hear the motion, in November 1998 and April 1999.
[14] Neither the Court nor the defendant is required to suffer the consequences of the plaintiffs" negligence.
[15] It appears from the affidavit of Réjean Plamondon, dated September 8, 1999, that Ms. Lavoie was already busy with cases on the dates scheduled for the hearing, which seems unrealistic to the Court in the circumstances, since Ms. Lavoie had taken several steps since May 1999 for the case to be transferred to her, knowing full well that it had been peremptorily set down for September 20, 21 and 22, 1999.
[16] It appeared from the affidavit of Réjean Plamondon dated September 8, 1999 that the plaintiffs had difficulty contacting their counsel Ms. Lavoie, which once again is not a valid reason for adjourning a hearing.
[17] It further appeared from the affidavit signed by Réjean Plamondon, dated September 8, 1999, that the need to have a reasonable period of time to arrive at an out-of-court settlement seems to the Court completely unrealistic in the circumstances, as the action at bar was initiated nearly nine years ago.
[18] For all these reasons, the motion at bar is dismissed and the hearing of the instant application set down for September 20, 21 and 22, 1999 will take place as scheduled.
[19] In view of the special circumstances of this case, the Court asks the Registrar to inform the parties as soon as possible, by telephone if possible, of the instant decision in addition to the usual procedure of service.
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
September 13, 1999
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier, LL. B.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| STYLE OF CAUSE: CHANTAL PAPILLON ET AL. v. DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS ET AL. |
WRITTEN MOTION HEARD WITHOUT APPEARANCE BY PARTIES
| REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: BLAIS J. |
| DATED: September 13, 1999 |
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:
| Réjean Plamondon the plaintiff for himself |
Email this Content