Date: 20010116
Docket: T-1571-00
BETWEEN:
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
- and -
PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
Applicants
- and -
GOVERNMENT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
MacKAY J.
[1] By Order dated January 16, 2001, this Court ordered amendments to earlier Orders issued on October 2, 2000 and November 9, 2000.
[2] The first of those amendments, to the terms set out as "Exceptions" in paragraph 2, subparagraph 12) at page 6 of the Order of October 2, 2000 was made upon acknowledgment of a clerical error made by the Court in the terms of that Order which was brought to the attention of the Court by letter dated December 21, 2000 from counsel for the respondent Government of the Northwest Territories, writing on the request of the parties. The change now ordered is based in essence on the suggestion of the parties, intended to correct the apparent clerical error.
[3] The Court then noting that in consequence of this change further changes to Orders issued on October 2 and on November 9, 2000 are warranted, on the same ground, apparent clerical error, and for purposes of consistency. Those changes are made, as follows:
| i) to the Order of October 2, 2000 an amendment of the terms in paragraph 2, subparagraph 9) at page 6 [which relates in part to an earlier draft of the same document as in subparagraph 12)], so that the terms of "Exceptions" set out in both subparagraphs 9) and 12) are consistent; and |
| ii) to the terms of the Order of November 9, 2000, to delete paragraph 1, subparagraph 3) [which relates to the same document as referred to in paragraph 2, subparagraph 12) at page 6 of the Order of October 2, 2000]. |
[4] By an additional letter, dated December 19, 2000, counsel for the respondent Government writing on behalf of the parties, requested that "a further document be reviewed as part of the application by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which it is said "due to clerical error...has not yet been considered and ruled upon". The document in question, a copy of which was enclosed with the letter of December 19, 2000, is identified by counsel as that in Row 509, Document 7538. Upon comparing that with the document identified as Row 509, Document 7538 at Exhibit 7 of the confidential affidavit of Gerald Lewis Voytilla, No. 2, dated August 24, 2000, the Court concludes these are identical.
[5] Thus, the document submitted under the letter of December 19, 2000, is the same document as was considered and ruled upon by this Court in the Order dated October 2, 2000 at paragraph 2, subparagraph 12) at page 6, and further dealt with in the Order dated November 9, 2000 at paragraph 1, subparagraph 3. Both of those Orders are now amended by the Court, as described earlier in these Reasons, in response to the letter of December 21, 2000 from counsel for the respondent on behalf of the parties, which letter deals with the same document as that dealt with by the letter of December 19, 2000.
[6] Unless the Court misunderstands the request in the letter of December 19, 2000, the matter raised by that letter has been dealt with and the Court does not, at this stage, respond further to the letter of December 19, 2000.
(signed) W. Andrew MacKay
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario
January 16, 2001