Date: 20030722
Docket: T-2016-01
Citation No.: 2003 FC 897
BETWEEN:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Plaintiff
- and -
MICHAEL SEIFERT
Defendant
[1] By this motion filed on February 20, 2003, the defendant in these citizenship revocation proceedings seeks, inter alia, particulars of the statement of claim which was filed on November 13, 2001. The defendant has already pleaded in detail and at length to the statement of claim and has filed a counterclaim. The motion is not accompanied by an affidavit and is thus not supported by anything other than counsel's assertion to the effect that the requested particulars are necessary.
[2] By an order issued on March 6, 2003, I directed that that part of the motion which sought particulars should proceed in accordance with Rule 369. The relevant part of the order reads:
1) The portion of the defendant's motion filed on February 20, 2003 dealing with particulars will be dealt with in writing. Plaintiff shall serve and file his submissions by March 20, 2003. Defendant has until March 31, 2003 to serve and file a reply.
[3] The Crown duly and timely filed its submissions in opposition to the motion. As of July 9, 2003, on which date a hearing on another aspect of the defendant's motion took place, the defendant had still not responded to those submissions in compliance with the March 6 order; I then indicated to Mr. Christie that he should do so at the latest by Friday, July 11, 2003. Other than to re-assert, without argument, that the particulars are necessary, the new submissions add nothing to the material already before me.
[4] I can see no basis on which I should order particulars. Quite apart from the fact of the motion being out of time and not in compliance with the Rules, it is clear that the defendant does not require them in order to plead to the statement of claim for he has already done so. Since that time, the Crown has made voluminous document production and I have now scheduled oral discoveries to take place in October and November 2003. In my view, those discoveries and the documents already produced by the Crown will afford ample opportunity to the defendant to fill in any gaps in his knowledge of the case he has to meet and will do so in a more efficient and less costly manner than the production of formal statements of particulars.
ORDER
The motion is dismissed.
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
July 22, 2003
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: T-2016-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v.
Michael Seifert
MOTION IN WRITING PURSUANT TO RULE 369
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HUGESSEN
DATED: July 22, 2003
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:
Barney Brucker FOR PLAINTIFF
Douglas Christie FOR DEFENDANT
SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD:
Morris A. Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR PLAINTIFF
Mr. Douglas Christie
Victoria, British Columbia FOR DEFENDANT