Olympia Interiors Ltd. v. Canada
T-1436-92 / GST-41-92 / ITA-8447-92
MacKay J.
31/1/97
11 pp.
Motions for order plaintiffs not bring further motions in proceedings except with prior leave of Court-Basis for defendant's motions perceived abuse of Court's process by plaintiffs, with multiplicity of procedural initiatives-Unusual order not specifically provided for by any of Court's Rules-Counsel for defendant supporting motions to require plaintiffs to seek leave by analogy with Federal Court Act, s. 40-Also arguing Court should adopt order by analogy to one that might be made under s. 37.16 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure-No finding plaintiffs intended to abuse process of Court-Multiplicity of motions, applications, inquiries, other initiatives, many not in usual form, some without supporting affidavits or with affidavits not setting out factual basis for application-Plaintiff Mary David not solicitor-Latter's initiatives resulting in multiplicity of papers requiring defendant, and often Registry or Court, to review and to respond without contributing to progress in advancing action initiated by Mary David for plaintiffs-Order issued to require leave to file motions, applications, other initiatives-Court will be able to maintain all correspondence, documents from plaintiffs in case management file, and when leave granted to file motion or application, to file that on Court's regular file for proceedings-Once on regular file, it will be part of Court's regular process for formal response by defendant or for determination by Court-Motions allowed-Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, s. 40 (as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 11)-Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, R. 37.16.