Sher ashe counF oF Sosans saNo4 Runa shevatoneen Soc rove an xt Fae on ar PROVINCE OF SABA HGHAN October 26, 2006 Ms, Arlene Lowery 1719 Forget Street Regina, Saskatchewan SAT 4Y6 Dear Ms, Lowery: Re: Arlene Lowery v. Government of Saskatchewan et al QB.G. 1306 of 2005 Concems of Fiat of Dee, 1/05 and Oct, 16/06 This will acknowledge eceipt of your letter dated October 19, 2006, in which you request clarification on anumber of matters raised therein, Ihave reviewed the portions ofthe file ‘you have referred me to, and I offer the following comment, ‘The Fiat of Justice Kovach dated December 1, 2005 was not as happily worded as it could have been (the clerk writes the fiat based on what she understands the judge said, but the intent appears clear to legally rained person where the Fiat states "She may include the addition of four plaintifs, but Defendants will argue to validity of adding the additional parties". Once an action has been commenced, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant can join parties to an action JY. Without providing the existing parties with an opportunity to make submission with respec! tothe \ imate. The Fat of Justice Kovach dated December 1, 2008, went onto site "All matters shall ROLLY be ar 1c adjoumed date of March 7, 2006 @ 2:00 pan." Following the notice to the Sled abamies ordered in the December 1, 2005 Fa, the mater was argued on its merits on Mich of y 006 for the. e. The ‘regular aba 7008 forthe first time. Theres nothing regular about themannerin shih your pplication wag jealt With up to and including ‘the argumsnton March 7.2006, which Justice Chigoine reserved, yom As far as your comment on Justice Chicoine taking over the file from Justice Kovach, again this i routine on our Court. We are an itinerant Court, meaning that out judges vel to all judicial centres in the province (12). Our Chamber days are fixed in advance, The Judge assigned tothe chamber day deals with ll matters thet have ben adjourned to thet particular ay. That is what happened in this matter. With respect to any misunderstanding asto your ability to unilaterally file materials with the judge after the matter has been argued, I accept you misunderstood what Iustice Chicoine Seid, but the fact isthe law requires that no party file materials after the matter has been fillyargued unless the other side consents, o unless the Court so orders. Imention the forgoing simply to point out that you were not treated differently than any other party would be treated in attempting to file materials after the fact. As faras Justice Chicoine declining itthat you submitted: -of your application to file "new! *, Justice Chicoine in his Fiat of October 16, 2006, explains why he did not read it. He indicates the purpose of the affidavit was to ‘comment on the various reports referred to in the Fiat, but that such reports are not relevant to the ‘pplication you brought to amend your claim and to add new parties. He states on the Inst page of his Fiat: The docu which ie plain tins shuld have he dled Prior tothe bearing on March 7, 2006, may indeed be of some evidentiary 5 Spleen bet of acon ba hayacrot raced oie, ie gael Athair ties of lass pesnaed Mika oe ea Pcodet | should be added or whether the statement of claim should be struck under LH es fl ot ps 7 Rule 173, ‘The same rational applies to the affidavit which the plaintit A wv Wwithest submit date Septerber 15,2006, wich explains orenitizes the Jie ec Hee ‘contents of these reports.” Biquesy aS If material is not relevant to the application (even though it may be relevant for other purposes) ‘LS proper forthe judge to not consider such ircelevent material. Py Gcbtuneuld be vevelevant | With respect to your convem about having costs awarded against you for the “A+ applications, agin, costs are routinely awarded agains ne party who Was unsuceesful in ane aplication. This is what occured, The costs awarded are "In any event ofthe case” wiice taeans that you donot have to pay them a this ime, but once theltfgation is conciudel and one party is avatded costs, the costs avarded against youon these applications wil be deduct from any costs you are entitled to collec if you ae the successful party, and will be payable by you a any event if you are the unsuccessful party. Cost awarded in litigation are wat we reve toe "party and party” costs and arise under a fixed tai appended tothe Rules of Court, The tasit of costs very seldom amoun's toa complete indemnification of the costs actually Incurred iv any one application, be In conclusion, youhave been treated as every other litigant would be treated ia| matter to dato whether such ltigents ere represented by lawyers or not. Hopefully the foregoing assists your understanding, ‘Yours very truly, S225 RD. Laing RDL:cg.