Joyal
J.:
This
is
an
appeal
by
the
Applicants,
coupled
with
an
Appeal
by
the
Respondent,
with
respect
to
the
contents
of
the
record
in
the
Applicants’
application
for
judicial
review.
The
appeals
are
from
an
Order
of
the
learned
Prothonotary,
dated
June
13,
1997.
For
reasons
given
by
the
Prothonotary,
both
the
Applicants’
motion
and
that
of
the
Respondent
were
dismissed.
Upon
a
reading
of
the
pleadings
and
the
material
on
file,
and
upon
the
hearing
of
the
appeal,
where
I
heard
strong
argument
from
both
counsel,
it
is
clear
that
the
issues
are
somewhat
complex
and
not
easily
broken
down
into
their
several
parts.
Nevertheless,
I
am
satisfied
that
with
respect
to
both
the
case
for
the
Applicants
and
the
case
for
the
Respondent,
the
issues
are
better
left
open
to
the
good
judgment
of
the
judge
hearing
the
main
application
for
judicial
review.
There
is
no
doubt
that
the
Applicants’
motion,
both
as
to
the
timeliness
of
their
additional
filing
and
as
to
the
form
of
filing,
is
not
of
classic
textbook
style.
Moreover,
it
is
not
clear
that
the
requirements
of
Rules
1602
et
seq.
of
the
Rules
of
the
Federal
Court
have
been
respected,
nor
that
section
57
of
the
Federal
Court
Act
might
not
be
in
play.
Similarly,
however,
the
Respondent’s
motion
ts
not
without
its
own
taint.
Applications
to
strike
do
not
sit
well
in
judicial
review
proceedings,
which
are
by
nature
to
be
advanced
summarily
to
an
early
disposition.
Many
of
the
objections
raised
by
interlocutory
motion
with
respect
to
admissibility,
relevancy
and
timeliness
are
often
better
left
to
the
judgment
of
the
presiding
judge.
Order
It
is
my
view
that
on
the
foregoing
grounds,
the
Prothonotary’s
Order
of
June
13,
1997,
should
not
be
disturbed.
Thus,
the
appeal
filed
by
the
Applicants
and
that
filed
by
the
Respondent
are
both
hereby
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content