Alcorn et al. v. Commissioner of Corrections (Can.) et al., (1998) 156 F.T.R. 239 (TD)

• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 11, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1998), 156 F.T.R. 239 (TD)

Alcorn v. Commr. of Corrections (1998), 156 F.T.R. 239 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] F.T.R. TBEd. NO.014

Gordon Alcorn, of William Head Institution, Darrell Bates, of Kent Institution, Danny Bolan, of Elbow Lake Institution, Jon Brown, of Matsqui Institution, Shawn Buttle, of Regional Health Centre, Gary Fitzgerald, of Ferndale Institution, Angus MacKenzie, of Mountain Institution and Fabian Picco, of Mission Institution (applicants) v. The Commissioner of Corrections and the Deputy Commissioner of Corrections, Pacific Region, Correctional Service of Canada (respondents)

(T-1945-97)

Indexed As: Alcorn et al. v. Commissioner of Corrections (Can.) et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Hargrave, Prothonotary

September 11, 1998.

Summary:

The respondents applied to strike out an application for judicial review, or alterna­tively for an order that portions of various affidavits be struck out. The applicants applied to strike out two affidavits filed by the respondents.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the appli­cation to strike out the judicial review appli­cation. The Prothonotary also struck out portions of the various affidavits.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 208

Practice - Time for determination of com­pliance with limitation period - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that "[a] plea of limita­tion is not a suffi­cient ground to strike out a statement of claim but rather, in the case of an action, the correct pro­cedure is to plead the limitation and then set the matter down as a question of law before trial ... This same principle ought to apply to the striking out of an originating notice of motion or, as it is now referred to, a notice of application. To move to strike out a judicial review pro­ceeding, a proce­dure designed to be sum­mary in nature, in effect a motion upon a motion, is a waste of time and re­sources for all concerned. The time bar is a point which the parties ought to argue in full before the judge at the hearing of this application." - See paragraph 6.

Practice - Topic 2494

Writ of summons, endorsements, originat­ing summons and originating notices - Origina­ting notices - Striking out - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 208 ].

Cases Noticed :

Hasan v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] F.T.R. Uned. 264 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 4].

Bull (David) Laboratories (Canada) Inc. v. Pharmacia Inc. et al. (1994), 176 N.R. 48 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

Pharmacia Inc. et al. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) - see Bull (David) Laboratories (Canada) Inc. v. Pharmacia Inc. et al.

Hunter et al. v. Commissioner of Correc­tions (Can.) et al. (1998), 134 F.T.R. 81 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

BMG Music Canada Inc. et al. v. Vogiat­zakis et al. (1996), 110 F.T.R. 34; 67 C.P.R.(3d) 27 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].

Home Juice Co. v. Orange Maison Ltée, [1968] 1 Ex. C.R. 163, refd to. [para. 8].

Unitel Communications Co. et al. v. MCI Com­munications Corp. et al. (1997), 119 F.T.R. 142 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 8].

Ethier v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Commis­sioner) (1993), 151 N.R. 374 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531; 113 N.R. 53; 41 O.A.C. 353; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 92; 79 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Smith (A.L.), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915; 139 N.R. 323; 55 O.A.C. 321; 75 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 94 D.L.R.(4th) 590; 15 C.R.(4th) 133, refd to. [para. 9].

Gordon v. Matsqui Institution, [1973] F.C. 723 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Sterritt v. Canada (1996), 98 F.T.R. 68 (T.D. Protho.), affd. (1996), 98 F.T.R. 72 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 14].

Hunter et al. v. Commissioner of Correc­tions (Can.) et al. (1997), 134 F.T.R. 81; 45 C.R.R.(2d) 189 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 14].

Alcorn et al. v. Commissioner of Correc­tions (Can.) (1997), 136 F.T.R. 291; 153 D.L.R.(4th) 175 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 32].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Correctional Service of Canada, Paper, The Drug Strategy of the Correc­tional Service of Canada (January 1995), generally [para. 26].

Counsel:

Sasha Pawliuk, for the applicants;

Donnaree Nygard, for the respon­dents.

Solicitors of Record:

Sasha Pawliuk, Legal Services Society, for the applicants;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the re­spon­dents.

This matter was heard by Hargrave, Prothonotary, of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on September 11, 1998.