You are on page 1of 2
Id 6 D194 HD Pepe ie nr dete Sethe Holme gnease July 17, 2019 (ur File Number: 8303630 BY EMAIL Federal Court 90 Sparks Steet (Ottawa, Ontario KIA 09 Dear Sit/Madans: Re: 1398804 Ontario Ltd, operating as Blacklock’s Reporter v. Attorney General of Canada Court FiteNo.: T-1862-15 1 would be gratefilif yeu would bring this letter to the atention of Prothonotary Molgat ‘As per the Diectve ofthe Court, we have sought to engage plaintiff's counsel in setting ‘uta melale for fhe motion for summary judgment inthe Parks Canada action, However, ‘ontary to what i clearly provided for inthe Directive from the Cour, counsel for the plain continues to refuse to provide dates to the Attomey General, ‘To the Attorney Gzneral’s surprise, counsel forthe plaintiff has now proposed an agenda for the next Case Management Conference where he wishes to discuss a timetable in relation to the Health Canada action and not the Parks Canada action. He has requested {hat the Atlomey General bring the motion for summary judgment in the Health Canada faction and not the Parks Canada action. This is after he consented to having a motion for Summary judgment heard in the Parks Canada ection and after having had the benefit of the Attoniey Gene-al's Affidavit evidence for months inthe Parks Canada ation, Counsel for the p att? is resling from an agreement to have a motion for summary judament heard in the Parks Canada ection. The position advanced by plaintif?'s counsel is that he never ageed to having the Attorney General file affidavit evidence in support of ‘motion for summary judgment, even though it is eontemplated by the Rules. Rather, he contends that the motion should be on a point of law only, With the greatest of respect, there is a distincion between motion for summary judgment and the preliminary Canad: {determination ofa egal ise, What was agreed upon was a motion for summary judgment ‘which calls for evidence “The conduct of phintif’s counsel continues to be a serious problem for the Attorney General. A number of measures have been taken by the Attorney Genera, including {nsstence that all comminication be in writing. Counsel filed a partial resord of emails ‘exchanges with the Attorney Genera, When advised onthe impropriety of his ations, he {efused to file the complete record, Counsel has filed his personal notes on the last Case Management Conference, without seeking the approval of the Attomey General on the ocuracy ofhis aconunt, He ignored the Court's Direction, which was to seek the approval Of the Attomey Gener before filing such notes with the Court, When advised that his potes contained iniecuracies, he neglected to correct them. For nearly four months, the ‘Atiomey General tas been fequesting dates for the motion for summary judgment and ‘Counsel has refusec to cooperate, ven when faced with « Direction ofthe Cour to provide ‘ates, he refuses to cooperate. Given the circumstances, the Attomey General invites the ‘Court to issue en Order imposing dates onthe parties. The Attomey General is prepared to accommodate aay dates. “The Attomey Gereral has been approached by 8 number of defendants in the parallel actions and they have manifested an intrest in participating in the Parks Conade motion for summary judgment. There are common legal issues sed in this motion tat also affect their own proveedings. They 10 are keen to have this motion proceed. ‘With the exceptior ofthe first two weeks of September 2019, counsel is available to attend 1 Case Management Conference anytime. “The Attorney General of Canada sincerely apologizes to Madame Prothonotary Mol gat for ‘what appears tobe a very problematic file ‘Scott Miler, counsel forthe Plaintiff