Giles
A.S.P.:-The
motion
before
me
seeks
an
order
striking
out
the
affidavit
of
Richard
Catahan,
filed
with
the
applicant’s
supplementary
application
record.
The
proceedings
on
this
file
are
for
judicial
review
and
Part
V.I
of
the
Federal
Court
Rules,
among
others,
applies.
Part
V.I
of
the
Rules
set
out
the
manner
in
which
judicial
review
proceedings
are
to
be
carried
on.
Rule
1603(1)
indicates
that
the
applicant
shall
file
the
affidavits
in
support
of
his
application
at
the
time
he
files
his
notice
of
motion.
The
Rules
also
limit
the
time
for
filing
and
serving
the
respondent’s
affidavits
(Rule
1603(3)).
Rule
1606
provides
for
the
filing
of
the
applicant’s
application
record
and
Rule
1607
provides
for
the
filing
of
the
respondent’s
application
record.
Rule
1608
makes
provision
for
the
filing
and
serving
of
an
applicant’s
supplementary
application
record.
That
Rule
makes
no
mention
of
any
additional
affidavits.
The
procedure
contemplated
is,
in
simple
terms,
as
follows:
1.
The
applicant
files
his
evidence
(Rule
1603(1)).
The
respondent
files
his
evidence
(Rule
1603(3)).
The
applicant
files
his
argument
together
with
copies
of
the
materials
on
which
his
case
is
based
(application
record
Rule
1606).
The
respondent
files
his
argument
and
copies
of
the
materials
on
which
his
case
is
based
(respondent’s
application
record
Rule
1607).
The
applicant
may
then
file
a
reply
argument
(supplementary
application
record
Rule
1608).
It
is
to
be
noted
that
the
rules
with
respect
to
application
records
do
not
indicate
that
any
affidavits
will
be
filed
with
the
records
which
were
not
served
and
filed
under
Rule
1603.
Justice
requires
that
each
party
be
in
possession
of
the
other
party’s
evidence
before
he
has
to
make
his
final
argument.
It
would
therefore
be
most
unjust
to
allow
a
party
to
submit
additional
evidence
after
the
other
party
had
submitted
his
final
argument.
The
affidavit
of
Richard
Catahan,
sworn
January
20,
1995
must
therefore
be
struck
out
as
must
all
references
to
it
and
to
exhibits
to
it
(as
such)
in
the
applicant’s
supplementary
application
record.
I
note
that
there
may
be
cases
where
for
special
reasons,
additional
evidence
should
be
before
the
Court
and
in
such
a
case
an
application
could
be
made
to
a
judge
to
extend
the
time
within
which
the
affidavit
evidence
of
that
party
could
be
served
and
filed.
It
might
be
that
such
an
extension
would
be
made
on
terms
which
also
extended
the
time
for
other
parties’
affidavits
and
for
the
various
application
records.
The
Rule
with
respect
to
such
an
extension
in
Part
V.I
is
1614.
Order
1.
The
affidavit
of
Richard
Catahan,
sworn
January
20,
1995
including
its
documentary
exhibits
is
struck
from
the
applicant’s
supplementary
application
record.
2.
All
references
to
the
said
affidavit,
sworn
January
20,
1995
including
its
documentary
exhibits
and
its
contents
as
such
are
struck
from
the
applicant’s
response
to
the
respondent’s
points
of
argument
contained
in
the
applicant’s
supplementary
application
record.
In
the
circumstances,
there
will
be
no
costs
of
this
motion.
Motion
granted.
Email this Content