 Printer-Friendly Page
Date: 20020514
Docket: A-565-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 198
CORAM: ISAAC J.A.
BETWEEN:
SHELDON WALLIN
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Heard at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, on May 14, 2002
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, on May 14, 2002
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SHARLOW J.A.
Date: 20020514
Docket: A-565-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 198
CORAM: ISAAC J.A.
BETWEEN:
SHELDON WALLIN
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (Delivered from the Bench at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan on May 14, 2002)
SHARLOW J.A.
[1] These are four appeals from identical judgments of a Motions Judge dated August 27, 2001, allowing the Crown's motions for default judgment because of the failure of the appellants to provide a timely answer to written examinations for discovery. [2] In the Trial Division there were six related actions by the Crown against related parties, all based on similar facts. The actions were based on the allegation of the Crown that in September of 1998, the appellants had each obtained an advance for the 1998/99 crop year under the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, and that the advances were not repaid on the due date in August of 1999. The Crown sought answers to written examinations for discovery. The responses were due in June of 2001, but had not been made by July 30, 2001. The Crown then filed motions for default judgment. The motions were granted in four of the cases but dismissed in the fifth, on the basis that the answers in that case had been filed on August 17, 2001. The four parties against whom judgment was granted filed motions for reconsideration, which were dismissed. [3] The fact is that the answers in all five cases had been filed on August 17, 2001. The record discloses no basis on which the filing of answers in the fifth case was a sufficient defence to the motion for default judgment, when it was not a defence in these four cases. We infer that the Motions Judge was not aware that answers had been filed in these four cases. [4] In these circumstances we agree with counsel for the appellants that the default judgments should be set aside. However, as the cause of the confusion was an error or errors by counsel for the appellants, as he has frankly conceded, the costs of these appeals, and the costs in the Trial Division of the motions for default judgment and for reconsideration, should be borne by the appellants. A copy of these reasons will be filed in each of the four appeal files.
"Karen R. Sharlow" J.A. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan May 14, 2002 FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISION NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
Appeal from an order of the Trial Division dated August 27, 2001, Trial Division Docket T-1709-00.
DOCKET: A-565-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: Sheldon Wallin v. Her Majesty The Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
DATE OF HEARING: May 14, 2002
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF
THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE SHARLOW
DATED MAY 14, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Jay D. Watson for the Appellant
Mr. Marvin Luther for the Respondent Department of Justice 10th Floor, 123 - 2nd Ave. South Saskatoon, SK S7K 7E6
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Jay D. Watson 500 128 4th Avenue South Saskatoon, SK S7K 1M8 for the Appellant
Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada for the Respondent |
|||
|
|||
|
|
