Date: 20000803
Docket: T-1805-98
BETWEEN:
REVEREND BROTHER WALTER A. TUCKER,
REVEREND BROTHER MICHAEL J. BALDASARO,
REVEREND BROTHER MICHAEL ETHIER, JAMES
R. HOAD. BROTHER CHARLES AND SISTER LEANNE
SCOTT, REVEREND BROTHER DANIEL LOEHNDORF,
REVEREND BROTHER IAN FERGUS HUNTER, REVEREND
BROTHER SHELDON FRIESEN, REVEREND BROTHER
RICHARD FRIESEN, CHRISTOPHER ANDREW TREMBLAY,
DUSTIN S. CANTWELL, PAUL S. DEFELICE, REVEREND
BROTHER JOHN ALLEN WEST, REVEREND BROTHER
CHRIS BENNETT
Plaintiffs
-and-
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
GILES A.S.P.
[1] By the motion before me, Reverend John Allen West, I assume the same person as the Reverend Brother John Allen West, shown in the style of cause as a "plaintiff" seeks consent to file documents listed.
[2] The plaintiff was one of those added by Order of the Court after the original statement of claim was filed. Nothing in those Orders dealt in any way with Rule 102 which therefore still applies and requires that when two or more persons join as plaintiffs, they must be represented by the same solicitor. That means that any motion or other step in this proceeding on behalf of any of the plaintiffs must be taken by a solicitor and it must be the same one.
[3] The notice of motion now before me (document 43) seeks consent to file documents. An action in this Court is started by a statement of claim. That document sets out what the plaintiffs are seeking from the Court. If as here, a plaintiff is added, it is usually necessary to amend the statement of claim to include the particular causes of action and the relief that the newly added plaintiff is seeking. There is no provision in the Rules for filing documents in an action until a stage where evidence is required. Evidence is usually provided by a witness for the purpose of disposing of the action itself. The witness may seek or be requested to produce documents. Affidavit evidence is used in a motion and documents may be exhibited to affidavits filed in motions as has happened here. The affidavit and the documents exhibited to it are used on the motion and are not thereafter used in the trial of the main action.
ORDER
[4] No reason being given for filing any of the documents listed for use in the action itself at this stage, the motion is dismissed. As previously noticed it was probably improperly filed because it was not filed by a solicitor. I should note that this Order in no way prevents this or any other party introducing this evidence if so advised at trial.
[5] The Rules do provide that an individual party may represent himself. In this case where there were two original plaintiffs who had not a solicitor, problems did not arise because each of the documents filed to date by them has been filed by both of them. As one individual plaintiff cannot bind any other individual plaintiff it is impossible to proceed without a solicitor unless every single document filed is signed by every single plaintiff, both original and added by Order of the Court.
[6] The Rules do provide that an individual party may represent himself. In this case where there were two original plaintiffs who had not a solicitor, problems did not arise because each of the documents filed to date by them has been filed by both of them. As one individual plaintiff cannot bind any other individual plaintiff it is impossible to proceed without a solicitor unless every single document filed is signed by every single plaintiff, both original and added by Order of the Court.
"Peter A. K. Giles"
A.S.P.
Toronto, Ontario
August 3, 2000
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| COURT NO: T-1805-98 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: REVEREND BROTHER WALTER A. TUCKER, REVEREND BROTHER MICHAEL J. BALDASARO, REVEREND BROTHER MICHAEL ETHIER, JAMES R. HOAD. BROTHER CHARLES AND SISTER LEANNE SCOTT, REVEREND BROTHER DANIEL LOEHNDORF, REVEREND BROTHER IAN FERGUS HUNTER, REVEREND BROTHER SHELDON FRIESEN, REVEREND BROTHER RICHARD FRIESEN, CHRISTOPHER ANDREW TREMBLAY, DUSTIN S. CANTWELL, PAUL S. DEFELICE, REVEREND BROTHER JOHN ALLEN WEST, REVEREND BROTHER CHRIS BENNETT |
| - and - |
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
CONSIDERED AT TORONTO, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 369
REASONS FOR ORDER
| AND ORDER BY: GILES A.S.P. |
| DATED: THURSDAY, AUGUST 3, 2000 |
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY: Reverend Brother John Allen West
For the Plaintiff, on his own behalf
Robert H. Jaworski
For the Defendant
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Reverend Brother John Allen West
# 8 Arthur"s Road
R.R. #1
Hornby Island, British Columbia
V0R 1Z0
For the Plaintiff, on his own behalf
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Defendant
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20000803
Docket: T-1805-98
Between:
| REVEREND BROTHER WALTER A. TUCKER, REVEREND BROTHER MICHAEL J. BALDASARO, REVEREND BROTHER MICHAEL ETHIER, JAMES R. HOAD. BROTHER CHARLES AND SISTER LEANNE SCOTT, REVEREND BROTHER DANIEL LOEHNDORF, REVEREND BROTHER IAN FERGUS HUNTER, REVEREND BROTHER SHELDON FRIESEN, REVEREND BROTHER RICHARD FRIESEN, CHRISTOPHER ANDREW TREMBLAY, DUSTIN S. CANTWELL, PAUL S. DEFELICE, REVEREND BROTHER JOHN ALLEN WEST, REVEREND BROTHER CHRIS BENNETT |
| - and - |
| HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN |
| REASONS FOR ORDER |
AND ORDER