PRACTICE |
Affidavits |
Sawridge Band v. Canada
T-66-86A
Hugessen J.
3/2/00
7 pp.
(1) Motion by interveners to strike out affidavit filed by plaintiffs in support of main motion seeking to strike out interveners' intervention; (2) motion for leave to examine interveners' representatives in connection with main motion--Motions dismissed--(1) Although improper as replete with conclusory, argumentative allegations, almost all of which on matters of law as to which deponent not apparently qualified, affidavit should not be struck--In sane, modern procedure, irregularities in proceedings should not be made subject of motions and should not require Court to give orders striking out or correcting such irregularities unless party attacking irregularity can show that it suffers some sort of prejudice as result thereof--That Court might be induced to believe that these highly tendentious allegations in affidavit uncontested matters of fact only prejudice suggested by counsel for interveners--Hopefully Court not that gullible--Absent any showing of prejudice, and notwithstanding that almost all of affidavit irregular, no grounds justifying striking out affidavit--(2) If original order granting intervener status void because of intervening judgment of Court of Appeal setting aside decision at first trial, interveners must show as matter of legal argument on main motion, order, although spent, should be renewed--If, because of what happened since first trial, situation sufficiently changed that order should be revisited, burden of showing order should be changed on plaintiffs--No right to go on fishing expedition, hoping by forcing interveners to testify will hit upon something.