Date: 20001219
Docket: T-1646-97
BETWEEN:
RONALD WILLIAMS
Plaintiffs
- and -
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BLAIS J.
[1] This is a motion for an order for reconsideration of the judgment rendered on August 31, 2000.
[2] This motion requests that the Court reconsider the judgment and reasons on the issues 3 and 4 in section 40 of the decision alleging that the matters have been overlooked or accidentally omitted and not dealt with in the reasons or judgment.
[3] The motion is also for an order extending time to bring this motion and also for an order dispensing with Rule 364 and the necessity to file a formal record and factum.
[4] Final judgment in this case was rendered on August 31, 2000.
[5] A notice of appeal was filed by the appellant, the Minister of National Revenue on October 2, 2000.
[6] The notice of motion for reconsideration was filed on October 12, 2000 without any affidavit or record.
[7] The defendant provided written representations and filed them on November 24, 2000.
[8] On December 12, 2000, Justice Campbell ordered that "the affidavit and written submissions can be accepted for filing, subject to any argument to be made before Blais J. on reconsideration respecting their relevance or weight".
[9] In its written representations, the defendant suggests that the plaintiffs have not provided any grounds to support their request that the requirements of Rule 364 be dispensed with. The defendant also suggests that the plaintiffs have failed to give a reasonable explanation for the delay in asking for reconsideration.
[10] In response to the defendant's written representations, the plaintiffs filed and served a "supplemental record and written submissions in reply" which includes an affidavit and representations.
[11] That document is in some ways the record and the representations that should have been filed and served with the motion in the first place.
[12] The defendant filed and served another letter dated December 4, 2000 in which he strongly opposed the consideration of the supplemental record and written submissions in reply filed and served by the plaintiffs.
[13] The defendant suggests that this document is irregular because as a reply it should respond to items raised by the defendant and in fact, it raises many new arguments, particularly in paragraphs 4, 6, 10 and part of paragraph 5.
[14] I agree with the defendant that he is deprived of any opportunity to respond to this information even through cross-examination and therefore, it should not be considered by the Court.
[15] The defendant also suggests that the affidavit of Elvire Medieros was not included with the plaintiffs' motion materials, it was neither listed in the notice of motion as information which the plaintiffs intend to rely on and that this affidavit is improperly before the Court and should not be relied on.
[16] I totally agree with the defendant's submissions.
[17] In fact, if a party intends to bring a motion for an extension of time and also to be dispensed of the application of any rules, it should be explained in detail and the Court should be provided with valid reasons.
[18] In fact, it is not the case, here, and the motion for extension of time and to be dispensed to comply with Rule 364 is dismissed.
Pierre Blais
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
December 19, 2000