Mennes v. Can., (1994) 81 F.T.R. 129 (TD)

CourtFederal Court
Case DateJune 27, 1994
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(1994), 81 F.T.R. 129 (TD)

Mennes v. Can. (1994), 81 F.T.R. 129 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Emile Marcus Marguerita Mennes (plaintiff) v. Her Majesty the Queen (defendant)

(T-289-91)

Indexed As: Mennes v. Canada

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Hargrave, Prothonotary

June 27, 1994.

Summary:

Mennes sued the federal Crown. Various statements of claim and amendments were struck out on three occasions. Mennes was precluded by court order from commencing further actions. That order was appealed, but was not yet heard. Mennes had filed original documents (instead of copies) as exhibits to various affidavits. Mennes applied for the return of those documents. The Crown had notice, but did not contest the application.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the application in part. The court, not the parties, determined which documents were to be retained. The Prothonotary was hesitant to return any documents, where the Court of Appeal should have an opportunity to examine them if the appeal went forward. Further, the documents were now public documents. The Prothonotary ordered that the majority of the documents be retained, but did order the return of several original documents after the Registry Officer photocopied them for the file.

Practice - Topic 3565

Evidence - Exhibits - Return of - Mennes sued the federal Crown - Various statements of claim were struck out on three occasions - Mennes was precluded by court order from commencing further actions - That order was appealed, but was not yet heard - Mennes had filed original documents (instead of copies) as exhibits to various affidavits - Mennes applied for the return of those documents - The Crown had notice, but did not contest the application - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the application in part - The court, not the parties, determined which documents were to be retained - The Prothonotary was hesitant to return any documents, where the Court of Appeal should have an opportunity to examine them if the appeal went forward - Further, the documents were now public documents - The Prothonotary ordered that the majority of the documents be retained, but did order the return of several original documents after the Registry Officer photocopied them for the file.

Cases Noticed:

McCleery v. Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (No. 2), [1974] 2 F.C. 361; 5 N.R. 237 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Rules, rule 201(6) [para. 8].

Counsel:

Emile M.M. Mennes, on his own behalf;

No one appearing for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respndent.

This application was heard at Vancouver, B.C., before Hargrave, Prothonotary, of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on June 27, 1994.

To continue reading

Request your trial