Date: 19990810
Docket: T-1844-98
BETWEEN:
EMILE MARGUERITA MARCUS MENNES
Plaintiff
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
GILES A.S.P.:
| [1] By the motion before me the defendant seeks to strike out certain questions from the plaintiff"s written examination for discovery of the defendant. |
| [2] The plaintiff"s claim is for a declaratory order declaring the Federal Court Rules, 1998 , of no force and effect to the extent of the inconsistencies pleaded in the claim. In particular, the plaintiff attacks Rule 70(2) which requires reproduction of statutes and regulations in both official languages which he claims infringes his right of access to this Court in either official language. |
| [3] He further attacks Tariff A for discriminating against him on the basis of his disadvantaged condition arising from the fact that he is an inmate with only an inmate"s income with which to pay fees. |
| [4] The plaintiff"s first question seeks the annual remuneration and the source of that remuneration for a long list of people, commencing with the Governor General, and finishing with each member of the administration of Warkworth Penitentiary. The answer to this question would be totally irrelevant and it does not have to be answered. It is, therefore, struck out. |
| [5] The defendant seeks an order striking also the question: |
| |
On exactly what grounds, if any, does the Defendant purport to deny the allegations contained in: |
|
| |
(a) paragraph 1 of the statement of claim? |
|
Paragraph 1 states what the plaintiff claims. It would be enlightening to know why the defendant denies the plaintiff claims the things he claims, so I will not strike that question, which is 2(a).
| [6] The parts of question 2 numbered (b) through (g) seek opinions or conclusions of law and do not have to be answered, and therefore those questions will be struck out. |
| [7] Paragraph 11 of the statement of claim indicates that the plaintiff has brought the action "as a result of his inability to pay the oppressive fees under Tariff A of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 , for notice of application without subjecting himself to discrimination." In the statement of defence the defendant states it has "no knowledge of the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the statement of claim". |
| [8] The defendant"s third question seeks the grounds, if any, for the defendant"s statement when, as shown by the defendant"s admissions, that the defendant has knowledge that the plaintiff"s income is restricted to the level set out in the statement of claim. In my opinion the answer to this question would be irrelevant, and therefore it will be struck out. |
| [9] Question 4(1) asks: "Is the defendant saying that, in relation to the plaintiff"s restricted level of income, the fees prescribed by Tariff A of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 , are not oppressive?" This seeks an opinion and the question does not have to answered. It is struck out. |
| [10] Question 4(2) reads: "How would the Defendant categorize the said fees other than as oppressive...?" This is again seeking an opinion and will be struck out. |
| [11] Question 4(5) seeks the defendant"s admission that the true purpose of the fees under Tariff A is to deny disadvantaged individuals access to the Court, and reduce them to obtaining legal aid for themselves if they can get it or to being represented by a lawyer instead of proceeding in person. This again seeks an opinion and the question will be struck out. |
| [12] Question 5 and its six sub-questions all seek statistics with regard to actions in the Federal Court, are irrelevant and are struck out. |
| [13] Question 6 commences: |
| |
"As to the balance of paragraph 4 of the statement of defence whereby the Defendant denies that the plaintiff was denied his rights under the Charter : |
|
| |
(a) on what grounds, if any, is this denial based? |
|
This seeks a legal opinion which does not have to be provided, and the question is struck out.
| [14] Question 6(b) reads: |
| |
"is the defendant alleging by its denial that the plaintiff was not entitled to have equally received notice of the pending Federal Court Rules, 1998 and to equally have made representations to the Rules Committee as other individuals or groups in Canada were entitled to do? |
|
| [15] Question 6(c) reads: "if the Defendant is not alleging by its denial that the plaintiff was not entitled to have equally received notice and made representations, then exactly what, if anything, is the defendant alleging?" Both b) and c) can be looked upon as subdivisions of a), and for the same reason should be struck out. |
| [16] Question 7 reads in part: |
| |
"As to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the statement [of] defence: |
|
| |
(c) are the Warden of the Warkworth Penitentiary and the Commissioner of Corrections, or either one of them, personally familiar with the requirements of law and its rule under "the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel" governing the Crown in regards to justice and its proper administration in Canada? |
|
| |
(e) do any of the publications in which alleged federal legislation is contained accord with law and its rule under Sections 20(b) and (c) and 21(a), 21(b), and 21(c) of the Canada Evidence Act ? |
|
Neither (c) or (e) is relevant to any unadmitted fact in the pleadings and are struck out.
| [17] Subquestion 8(a) seeks the reason why the Canada Gazette was cancelled by Warkworth Penitentiary officials. The answer would not be relevant. The question is struck out. |
| |
"if the reasons are said to be budgetary, what was the yearly subscription cost of the Canada Gazette against the annual cost, including printing costs and staffing, of publishing the following publications published by the CSC: |
|
This question also is irrelevant and is struck out.
| [19] Subquestion (c) seeks the defendant"s undertaking to provide copies of the publications mentioned in subparagraph (b), with the approved annual budget for each, etc. This question is also irrelevant and is struck out. |
| [20] Subquestion (d) asks what publications have been purchased for inmates by the Penitentiary library since the cancellation of the Canada Gazette. This also is irrelevant and is struck out. |
| [21] Subquestion (e) seeks the cost of each of the publications referred to in d), and like d) is irrelevant, thus all of question 8 should be struck out. |
| [22] Question 9 deals with relationship of the Chief Justice and other members of the Rules Committee with these proceedings, the consideration given by the Committee to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and to enquire what steps, if any, will be taken by the Rules Committee to include a part in the Rules specific to the special access requirements of Canada"s prisoners; whether the Rules Committee has ever discussed providing penitentiary sittings; whether any members of the Committee are aware how many people are inside Canada"s prisons on a given day; whether the Committee has thought of having the Chief-Sentence Administration at each penitentiary appointed Assistant Judicial Administrator (Penitentiary), and whether the members of the Rules Committee have read the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at Kingston Penitentiary for Women at Kingston ; whether any members of the Rules Committee have toured inside a penitentiary, if so, which one and on what dates, etc.; would the members of the Rules Committee be prepared to meet with the plaintiff and tour the Warkworth Penitentiary, etc. None of these matters are relevant to the matters pleaded, and should be struck out. |
| [23] Subquestion 10(c) asks exactly how is a certain remark contained in Mr. Lilly"s memorandum relevant to anything pleaded, or was it made in an attempt to mislead counsel, etc. This question is irrelevant and does not have to be answered. |
| [24] Subquestions (d) and (e) seek interpretation of paragraph 5 of Commissioner"s Directive 720. Both questions are irrelevant and do not have to be answered, and will be struck out. |
| [25] Subquestion 10(h) requires "how does the defendant expect inmates to make representations to parliamentary committees and the rules committees of the Supreme Court and the Federal Court", etc. This is irrelevant and will be struck out. |
| [26] Subquestion 10(j) asks: |
| |
in exactly which publications (title, author/editor, publisher, date of publications) at the Warkworth Penitentiary is each document listed under paragraph 35 of Commissioner"s Directive 720 published, and how does each such publication accord with Sections 20(b) and (c) and 21(a), 21(b), and 21(c) of the Canada Evidence Act? |
|
It is submitted that supplying this information would be onerous. There is no evidence of that, but in my view the answer would be irrelevant. In addition, it seeks a legal interpretation of sections of the Canada Evidence Act, which is not required. (j) will be struck out.
| [27] Subquestion (k) which asks: "exactly what "Commendations to Teacher-Librarian D Albright" are meant and "noted" by Mr. Lilly". The question goes on to ask if these commendations are published, what is the document in which they appear, and will the defendant undertake to provide and with his answer hereto provide the copy of each said document. There is a possibility that these commendations may have some relevance, and certainly without seeing them there is no way of stating that they could not; therefore, this question should be answered. |
| [28] Subquestions 11(e) to (l) and (n) appear at best remotely and indirectly related to anything at issue in these proceedings, if they are not absolutely irrelevant and are struck out. |
| [29] Subquestion 12(a), seeking when was the last time the Commissioner personally reviewed this Directive, is irrelevant and does not have to be answered. |
| [30] Question (b) asks: "exactly how does paragraph 35 "ensure continued relevant in conformity to THE LAW" under sections 20(b) and (c) and 21(a), 21(b), and 21(c) of the Canada Evidence Act without the Canada Gazette also being available in each library." This question is a non-sequitur but so far as I can make out is irrelevant. In any event, it does not have to be answered. |
"Peter A.K. Giles"
A.S.P.
TORONTO, ONTARIO
August 10, 1999
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| STYLE OF CAUSE: EMILE MARGUERITA MARCUS MENNES |
CONSIDERED AT TORONTO, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 369
| REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: GILES A.S.P. |
DATED: TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 1999
| WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: Mr. Emile Marguerita Marcus Mennes |
For the Plaintiff
Ms. Janice Rodgers
For the Defendant
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Emile Marguerita Marcus Mennes |
| c/o The Warkworth Penitentiary |
Cons 9, Lot 34-35
Percy Boom Side Road, County Road 29
Brighton Township, Northumberland County
P.O. Box 760
Campbellford, Ontario
K0L 1L0
| For the Plaintiff in Person |
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Defendant
Date: 19990810
Docket: T-1844-98
Between:
| EMILE MARGUERITA MARCUS MENNES |
Plaintiff
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant