P. 1
Canadian Federation of Students/Canadian Federation of Students Ontario and The Student Federation of the University of Ottawa - CFS Factum No. 2 - March 3, 1995

Canadian Federation of Students/Canadian Federation of Students Ontario and The Student Federation of the University of Ottawa - CFS Factum No. 2 - March 3, 1995

|Views: 2|Likes:
Published by climbrandon
Court File No. 88989/95
Ontario Court (General Division)

Between:

Canadian Federation of Students/Canadian Federation of Students Ontario (Plaintiff)

and

The Students' Federation of the University of Ottawa/La Fédération des étudiants de l'Université d'Ottawa, INC. (Defendant)

CFS Factum No. 2
Court File No. 88989/95
Ontario Court (General Division)

Between:

Canadian Federation of Students/Canadian Federation of Students Ontario (Plaintiff)

and

The Students' Federation of the University of Ottawa/La Fédération des étudiants de l'Université d'Ottawa, INC. (Defendant)

CFS Factum No. 2

More info:

Published by: climbrandon on Sep 12, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/12/2012

pdf

text

original

ll^rc,h

3it{
i'.l

ll

;'r';

-.t.

OTIIBIO
B

COURT

court Fila uo. ss9s9/9s (GExEnrr, DMgIoxt O'
AII'DEIIEE
i l l

Ei!r!

TIl:
'EDIBIAIOT cllllDr t raDB,lrtor ot afuDEdTa omlnlo

c]I ADTIf,

PIat!!tLff -!!alEEE ATIDEI|IS l

' Of OISA'A - I.I

TEDERTITOI

OI IgE I'IIVENBIITY

.

'EDBNA'IOX r.'sxmRarrE D'olElrA;

DEA EII'DIINTA DE

lfc.

D€f,aadrDt

co ,IIGI AIRATEY a EENDERAOI Earrist.E ala goll,citorE 2600-160 El.glD str.et ottrva, orttEio.

iMc3
'IODD

(6131 232-1?8t

i'.

BI'RX!

SoticLtors for th. Plailtiff

-2Court ltle No' 88989/95 ONTARIO COI]RT (GEI{ERAL DII'ISIOIO

BETWEEN:

.

CANADIAN FEDMATION OF STTJDENTS CANADIAN FDERATION OF STTJDENTS ONTARIO

Plaintiffs

-andTIIE STTJDENTS' FEDERATION OF THE INTT'ERSITY OF OTAAWA - LA FEDERATION DF,S ETUDIANTS DE L'INWERSITE D'OTTAWA, INC.

Defendant

FACTTJM

INDEX
PAGE

PARTI PART II PARTItr PART IV
SCHEDI]LE A

THE MOTION THE FACTS THE LAW
ORDER SOUG1TT

3
3

5

7
8

-3
PARTI-THEMOTION

-

1.

The motion is for an order varying the order granted by the Honourable Justice

Chilcott on February

i0,

1995 where an injunction was granted enjoining the Defendant from
as

holding a Referendum at the Univenity of Ottawa on February 13, 14 and 15, 1995,

scheduled, and ordered a new referendum lelating to the issue a! to whether the Defeldant should maintain its membership in the Plaintiffs organizations. This new referendum was ordered

!o be held on March 20, 1995. The Plaint'rffs take the positid that the relief sorght by the Defendant should be dcnied as it morc property constitutes the subject of an appeal and not a
motion to amend or vary.

PARTtr-TEEFACTS

2.

The Plaintiffs CFS and CFS Ontario are bodies corprate incolporated under the

laws of Camda and the laws of Ontario. The Defendant is also a body corporate inc!ryorat€d under the laws of Ontario with its Head Office located in the City of Ottawa.

Nlancinelli Aflidavit, Respondent's Motion Record, paragraph 2.

fttario is the provincial component of the plaintiff CFS ard has been since March of 1993. In 1993, the Ontario Federation of Students (OFS) becane the Canadian
CFS

3.

Federation of Students

Ontario. The

Defendant is a member of both CFS and CFS Ontario.

Mancinelti Affidayit, Respoldent's Motion Record, paragraphs 2 and 3.

4.

On February 8 dnd 9, 1995 the Plaintiffs brought a motior before Mr. Justice

Chilcott of the Ontario Coun (General Division) s€eking !o enjoin the Defendant from holding
a referendum at the

Unive$ity of Ottawa scheduled for February 13, 14, and 15, 195 relating to the issue as !o whether the Defeldant should maintain its membership in the plaintiffs undl of the Plaind_ffs were authorized to attend on campus and campaign in such a referendum, The by-laws of the plaintiffs allow representatives of the plaintiffs to
such time as repiesentatives

-4attend on campus

for the

puryoses

of

campaigning

in

such a referendum, however, the

Regulations pass€d by the Defendant on January 15,

195

sought to prohibit such pnrticipation.

Mancinelli Affidavit, Respondent's Motion Recoral, Paregraph 4.

5.
February 13,

In

a

derision rendercd on February 9, 1995 Mr. Justice Chilcoft ordered that the

Defendant be enjoined ftom holding a referendurn at the University of Ottawa s€heduled for

i4 and 15, 1995 rclating to the issue

as !o whether tlle Defendant should maintain

its membe$hip in the CFS and the CFS orrtario. In so doing, Mr. Justice Chilcott ordered that the referendum be rescheduled and held on March 20, 1995. The carnpaigning for such a
rcferendum will begin on March 13, 1995 at 12:01a,m,. The order of Mr. Justice Chilcott also requires the Plaintiffs to pay the costs of the refercndum and imposes no restriction as to the people thai can campaigl or the amount of funds which can b€ spent on the campaign with
respect io tho issue as to whether the Students Federation of the University of Ottawa should

maintain its membership in the Plaintiffs.

Mancinelli Affidavit, Resoopdept's Motiotr Record, Paragreph 5.

6.

At the hearing ofthe matter Mr. Justice Chilcltt

addressed himself !o the length

and day on which the referendun would be

held. In

so doing, counsel

for the Defendant was

given an opportunity to make submissions and made no submissions with rcspect to the
pqc€ntage of participation as it relat€d to the number of days on which the referendum was to
be held.

Mr. Justice Chilcott clearly indicated that the referendum was io b€ held on Monday,
Mancinelf Affrdavit, Responalent's Motion Record, Para$aph 6.

March 20, 1995.

7.

Mr. Justice Chilctrn directed that any further directions required with rcspe€I to
Mancinelli Affidavit, R€spondent's Motiou Record, Tab B, Paragraph 3.

this matter shall be brought back before him.

I
I PARTIII.TIIELAW
I

-5-

I.
I

VARYING AN ORDER

8,

fur order granting an interlocutory injunction may include such teims as are
Courts of.Iustice Act, R.S.o. 1990, c. C.43, ss. 101.

considered just.

9.

AIl order that c{ntains an error arising frorn an accidental slip or omission or

requires amendment with rcspect to any particular on which the court did not adjudicate may be amended on a motion in the proceeding.

Rul€s of Ciyil procedure, Rule 59.06.
10.

Rule 59.06 is sufficiently broad and general that the court may amend ajudgment

where there hal been an inadvertent eflor by the court which can be easily rcctified. Monarch Constructittn Ltd. v. Ruildevn ltd. 26 C.p.C. (2d)

c.A.).

0988),

164 (Ont.

The principle of general application is that the Court has no power to reyerse, set aside or ameod ajudgment or Oder which has be€n issued and enlerEd except where there has be€n an inadvertent error in its drafting, or where therc has been an error in expressing the manifest inteiltion of the Court.

i

1.

Kingion (CiE) v. Metmrylitan Tomrrta (Municipaw), 1 D.L.R. (2d) 436
(H.c.).
9

rttrio

(Onr. H.C.).

(Secuities {-ommissinn) v, Tutto Resources L;td. O9g3), 33 C.p.C. 50

II. 12,

PROPERLY MATTER FOR APPEAL

i

A judgment or order onc€ pass€d and entered c€n be reviewed or amended only on appeal save where the slip rule applies,

I
I I
I I
I
I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
& HEtr{DERSON
250G160 Elgin Othwa, K1P 1C3

-5Poich v. Tuleneer. Coal Mines ltl. (No, 2),llg3g.J
1

W.W.R. 299.

L€ave to Appeal from an interlocutory order ofajudge shall be obtained ftom a judge other than the judge who made the int€rloculory order.

13.

Rules of Civil procedurc, Rute 62.01(1)
The notice of motion for l€ave shall be served within s€velr days after the date the order from which lea.ve to appeal is sought,

14,

of

Rules of Civil procealurer Rule 62.02(2)

PART

W.

ORDF-R SOUCHT

15.

The Plaintiffrespectfully rcquests that this Honourable Court dismiss this motion

and grant its costJ to the plaintiffs.

ALL OF WEICE IS RESPECIT'ULLY
199s.

IEIS 2NDDAY OF

TODD J. BIJRKE JOEN G. JAWORSKI (613) 232-t781 Solicito$ for the Plaintiff

I

I l*
I
I| I I | I 1. 2. ,. O 5. U. 1' 8.

-,Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. c.43, ss. 101.
Rules of Civil Proc€dure, Rule 59.06

Rules of Civil procedure, Ruto 62.01(1) Rules of Civil prccedule, R.uJe 62.02?)

Monqrch Construction Ltd. y. Buitdeyco

Ltd. 0988),26 C.p.C. I D.L.R.

(2d) 164 (Ont. C.A.)
(2d) 486 (II.C.).

Kingstot (City) y. Metropotitan Toronto Municipa.W),

?{;.;o

,*'"'o"t

comnission) v. rurbo Resources Ltd (1983),33 c.P.c. 50 (ont.

Pavich v- Tulaneen Coal Minns Ltd. (No. 2), I|g3gl1 W.W.R. 299.

I I
I I

l,
I
I
I
I

I
il

o
l!

lr
rJ

{J ]J

, 6
2
o
(,

d

o

a l'A:

O

I
il

O H

o

t)
o L o

E 38;:

n Eiii >q.--'..'

I: r::';

:> ;aaJ

:i:-."9

1J

l1

H r;f; E gds
,;1 d;

-d3

2 o o a g AO Etl EO
EI .IJ

5
E
{J

o

o

sa
E{h cx boE! tc o'd HO'

.!o
a
91

o d co F ri x A lr O
rJ

o o

Fi

t ..1 JJ llo oo f.O O..l d trl{ d'a !d

E

o

il

rJ

CI

tr

&o) {o EO

E

er .aoo l,! c . t{oCOldr o, a..t 19 ]J (\ Er

d o
o

{,

Zr{ OA

tr
U

r.i d(,l Zl4 r.{-.{ o&l }@ ^ o .1 B!-iO,!Z 'l r{ +J d \o Oldr@Prl OOqldOM -

r.r ! I rt6lo N b}<t{q rr.{ ri , lr tJ..r N O @.i,P t o
.l|6d td OOOFI FtFitaA

! O r!

El6..r..r

oc

E ]J

o

o
FI

i
r, q
(l
I

rJ g

o

o 6 a
]J
@

o o
]J

o 6 a,

Ir

2
Fld Fld d EE o RO
t{

n

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->