Prothonotary
Morneau:
On
December
11,
1998,
the
Court
issued
an
order
which
provided,
inter
alia,
that:
[TRANSLATION]
On
or
before
January
18,
1999,
the
plaintiffs
must
appoint
a
new
solicitor
as
solicitor
of
record
who,
by
the
same
date,
must
provide
the
Registry
of
this
Court
and
counsel
for
the
defendant
with
his
or
her
address
and
telephone
number(s).
The
whole
period
set
in
the
notice
of
status
review
dated
September
10,
1998,
will
once
again
start
to
be
calculated
as
of
February
18,
1999.
On
March
4,
1999,
the
instant
file
was
again
brought
to
my
attention.
In
the
meantime,
the
representation
of
the
plaintiffs
was
settled.
The
plaintiff
Paul
Matte
is
now
representing
himself
and
has
also
been
authorized
to
represent
the
plaintiffs
L’Épinglerie
Ltée.
and
Areco
Inc.
As
for
plaintiff
Stéphane
Matte,
he
is
now
represented
by
counsel.
In
response
to
the
notice
of
status
review
dated
September
10,
1998,
however,
only
the
plaintiff
Paul
Matte
filed
written
representations
within
the
time
limit
for
himself
and,
presumably,
the
corporations
he
represents.
All
in
all,
these
written
representations
offer
an
acceptable
explanation
as
to
why
this
file
should
not
be
dismissed
for
delay.
The
representations
by
plaintiff
Paul
Matte
insist
at
length
on
the
merits
of
the
plaintiffs’
case.
However,
these
representations
do
not
propose
a
reasonable
timetable
for
the
prosecution
of
the
steps
to
follow
in
the
instant
file
in
order
to
perfect
it
for
the
purposes
of
rule
258
of
the
Federal
Court
Rules,
1998.
Accordingly,
as
there
are
grounds
to
allow
the
plaintiff
Paul
Matte
-
for
himself
and
the
corporations
he
represents
-
the
opportunity
to
file
such
a
timetable.
As
the
plaintiff
Stéphane
Matte
has
also
not
filed
such
a
timetable.
As
there
are
also
grounds
to
allow
and
encourage
the
defendant
to
file
its
proposed
timetable
for
the
instant
file,
there
are
grounds
to
order
that:
-Within
20
days
of
the
date
of
this
order,
the
parties
must
file
with
the
Court
-
jointly,
if
possible
-
a
timetable
of
the
steps
to
be
taken
henceforth
in
this
proceeding.
Any
timetable
proposed
by
the
parties
should
be
limited
to
those
steps
which
are
necessary
and
demonstrate
a
due
regard
for
expeditions
resolution
of
the
matter.
Order
accordingly.
Email this Content