Date: 20000804
Docket: T-3279-90
BETWEEN:
DIANNE ROY, MARY BALLANTYNE, and
CATHERINE PATTERSON-KIDD
Plaintiffs
-and-
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
AND
REASONS FOR THE NOTICE PURSUANT TO
RULE 404(2) OF THE FEDERAL COURT RULES, 1998
BLAIS, J.:
[1] This is a motion on behalf of Plaintiffs for an Order adjourning the trial of the within action to a date to be fixed by this Court.
[2] The trial in this case is scheduled for September 5, 2000 pursuant to an Order of this
Court dated August 31, 1999.
[3] Mr. Neil Wilson had been retained to represent the Plaintiffs in this matter.
[4] Ms. Lucie Laliberté, previous counsel for the Plaintiffs, was aware since fall 1999 that she could not be available to represent the Plaintiffs.
[5] Ms. Laliberté was unsuccessful in her efforts to find a counsel to replace her.
[6] Ms. Laliberté neglected to advise the Court and her clients about the situation.
[7] The Case Management Judge scheduled a pre-trial conference by telephone in June 2000 and was informed by Ms. Laliberté of the situation. The Plaintiffs were informed of the situation at the same time.
[8] Ms. Laliberté told the Court that she could not find a counsel to represent the Plaintiffs for the trial scheduled on September 5, 2000 and that an adjournment would be appropriate.
[9] The Case Management Judge told Ms. Laliberté that the way she managed her file was totally unacceptable and that he was not ready to allow an adjournment in the case.
[10] At this pre-trial conference, the Court was advised by counsel for the Defendant that the Defendant was ready to proceed to trial on September 5, 2000.
[11] At that said pre-trial conference, the Plaintiffs informed the Court that they were not aware that their counsel had literally abandoned the file and they had no idea how to appoint a new counsel to represent them.
[12] In my view, Mr. Neil Wilson, the newly appointed counsel needs more time to be ready for the trial.
[13] Mr. Saunders, counsel for the Defendant, advised the Court that he has no objection to an adjournment under the circumstances.
[14] In my view, Ms. Laliberté is personally responsible for the delay and for the adjournment of the trial that was scheduled for seven days starting September 5, 2000.
[15] Accordingly, Ms. Laliberté should pay the costs of this adjournment.
[16] This Court considers it appropriate that a notice be given to Ms. Laliberté pursuant to Rule 404(2) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998; this notice requests that Ms. Lucie Laliberté appear before the Court in person or through written submissions to give reasons why the Court should not make an Order directing the solicitor Lucie Laliberté personally pay the costs established at $1,000 given that the costs in the proceeding are incurred improperly, without reasonable cause and are wasted by undue delay for which she is responsible.
[17] The notice shall indicate that she should respond by written submissions or in person as she wishes and that her response should be prepared either by written submissions on or before the 30th of August 2000 at 9:30 a.m. at the Federal Court of Canada, 90 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario and if it is done in person by appearing before the Federal Court of Canada, 90 Sparks Street, 7th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario at 9:30 a.m. the 30th of August 2000.
[18] For these reasons, THIS COURT ORDERS THAT
The hearing of this case is adjourned sine die;
| The pre-trial conference will continue on August 28, 2000 in Ottawa at 10:00 a.m. The parties have agreed to meet together to do their best to narrow the issues and also to comply with the Order of this Court dated August 31, 1999; and |
| Pursuant to Rule 404 that a notice pursuant to Rule 404(2) ordering Ms. Lucie Laliberté to make written submissions that shall be served and filed no later than the 30th of August 2000 at the Federal Court of Canada, 90 Sparks Street, 7th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario at 9:30 a.m. or by appearing in person before the Federal Court of Canada, 90 Sparks Street, 7th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario at 9:30 the 30th of August 2000 to explain why she should not be requested to pay personally the costs established at $1,000 given that said costs were incurred improperly, without reasonable cause and are wasted by undue delay for which the Court considers she is responsible. |
PIERRE BLAIS
Judge
Montreal, Quebec
August 4, 2000