Date: 19990305
Docket: T-1829-98
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC, MARCH 5, 1999
BEFORE: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
Between:
CANARDS DU LAC BROME LTÉE
Plaintiff,
AND
AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD CANADA
Defendant,
AND
BERNARD DRAINVILLE,
Defendant.
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
[1] By its motion the applicant is seeking to obtain the following orders from this Court:
| [TRANSLATION] |
| ORDER that the affidavit of Claude Trottier in support of the application for review be considered as filed confidentially pursuant to Rule 151 of the Federal Court Rules; |
| AUTHORIZE the plaintiff, if necessary, to file a public record and the confidential record of the plaintiff pursuant to Rules 309 and 310 of the Federal Court Rules so as to be able to treat in confidence the information concerned which the plaintiff does not wish to disclose; |
| ORDER the holding of an in camera hearing pursuant to s. 47 of the Access to Information Act to avoid the disclosure of information through exhibits filed confidentially at the oral submissions. |
[2] There is no basis for granting the first order regarding the affidavit of Claude Trottier, since I consider that this affidavit contains no information of a confidential nature. Further, this affidavit is in the record of this Court, and that record has been public since October 30, 1998. It would be paradoxical to order that it be confidential now.
[3] As to the second order regarding the right of the plaintiff to file a confidential record, it has to be said that in principle the plaintiff must be recognized as having such a right in a case like the one at bar. However, I certainly could not allow it in connection with the motion at bar, since the plaintiff did not provide a clear and specific list of the documents which might warrant such exceptional treatment. I think the wording of Rule 151(2) refers indirectly to this requirement. This request by the plaintiff must accordingly be dismissed subject to its right to file another motion consistent with these reasons.
[4] On the third order sought, namely the possibility of holding the forthcoming hearing in camera, I feel that this request is premature for the moment. I think such a request should be made orally at the start of or during the future hearing, if such a remedy proves necessary. Many hearings, though very significant, attract no spectators. In such cases there is no need to formally order an in camera hearing. In other cases, although there are people in the hearing room only part of the proceeding requires to be held in camera. The judge of the merits may then take the appropriate measures on the spot. For the moment, therefore, the in camera hearing request is dismissed.
| Richard Morneau Prothonotary |
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier, LL. B.
| Federal Court of Canada Trial Division Date: 19990305 Docket: T-1829-98 Between: CANARDS DU LAC BROME LTÉE Plaintiff, AND AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD CANADA Defendant, AND BERNARD DRAINVILLE, Defendant. REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER |
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE No: T-1829-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: CANARDS DU LAC BROME LTÉE
Plaintiff,
AND
AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD CANADA
Defendant,
AND
BERNARD DRAINVILLE,
Defendant.
WRITTEN MOTION HEARD AT MONTREAL WITHOUT APPEARANCE BY PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
DATE OF REASONS FOR ORDER: March 5, 1999
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY:
Marc Savoie for the plaintiff
Sylvie Gadoury for the defendant
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Demers Bureau Borduas for the plaintiff
Marc Savoie
Sherbrooke, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg for the defendant Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Sylvie Gadoury for the defendant Bernard Drainville
Montréal, Quebec