Date: 20000217
Docket: T-498-99
BETWEEN:
CANADA POST CORPORATION,
Applicant,
- and -
ADITYA NARAYAN VARMA,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
DAWSON J.
[1] This is an application brought by Canada Post Corporation pursuant to s. 40 of the Federal Court Act for an order that no further proceedings be instituted by the respondent in the Federal Court of Canada except by leave of a judge of the Federal Court (Trial Division) and that all proceedings previously instituted by the respondent in the Federal Court be stayed and not be continued except by leave of a judge of this Court.
[2] Extensive written materials were filed in respect of the application by both the applicant and the respondent. The matter came on for hearing orally before me in Toronto on February 7th, 2000. In light of the respondent's objection I declined to grant leave to the applicant to file before the Court a supplementary motion record which it sought to file at the commencement of the hearing. No other preliminary matters were raised by either party.
[3] At the conclusion of the oral submission by counsel for the applicant, the respondent, appearing on his own behalf, began his oral submission which I understood to be directed to the substance of the application before the Court. After dealing with other matters, the respondent then related certain information about his health. That information was to the effect that:
| ["] while it had initially thought that he had suffered a stroke he had recently been diagnosed with Bell"s palsy; |
| ["] his left side was paralysed and he had been advised to avoid any activity which caused stress; |
| ["] if the Court could see the respondent as a "white person" it would understand that this was unplanned; |
| ["] knowing how "callous" this Court is he had no choice but to appear on the scheduled return of the application; |
| ["] he wanted to go on record as stating he was not fit to carry on with the proceeding; |
| ["] the prior week he had been diagnosed with a collapsing lung, kidney deterioration and he was on heart medication; |
| ["] as a consequence, he was off work; |
The respondent concluded his submission by stating that he viewed his choice to be that either he appeared in this Court "as corrupt and debauched as it is" and "gave up his life" or he asked the Court to "pretend I am white and a Jew and let me go home and rest" until he was able to "come in and do battle". He advised he was scheduled to have a further medical examination on February 17th , 2000 and would have better information then.
[4] In response to questions from the Court the respondent advised that he had made no formal motion for an adjournment prior to the hearing, he had not sought any adjournment from counsel for the applicant, and he had no medical evidence with him. He stated that he had said all he could say without causing injury to himself.
[5] In reply, counsel for the applicant opposed any adjournment, and took the position that it was an abuse of process in itself to come before the Court with no medical evidence, make no formal request for an adjournment, and then ask that the matter not proceed.
[6] There being no further submissions the matter was adjourned for consideration.
[7] Subsequently, the respondent sent certain material to the Court relating to his medical condition. However, such material is not properly before the Court in that it is not in the form of an affidavit, nor has the respondent made any proper request for an adjournment.
[8] Nevertheless, I am very conscious of the potential significance of this proceeding to the respondent and I am not prepared to proceed further on the merits of the application without giving to the respondent the opportunity to properly make and support a request that the application be put over for further hearing on the ground that on February 7th he was not fit to carry on with the proceeding.
[9] In the result it is ordered that:
1. The respondent is given until Monday, February 28th, 2000 to file with this Court a motion seeking leave to have the hearing of the application adjourned to a further fixed date so as to permit him to conclude his oral submission to the Court on the merits of the application. Such motion must be supported by an affidavit from a duly qualified medical practitioner licensed to practise in Ontario, and any motion and supporting affidavit(s) must be served on the applicant on or before February 28th, 2000.
2. In the event no such material is filed, the Court will deliver judgment on the basis of the applicant's record, the respondent's record and the oral submissions made before the Court on February 7th, 2000.
3. In the event such material is filed, the applicant will have 7 days from the date of service of the respondent"s materials to file and serve any materials in response or to request cross-examination of any deponent.
4. An early date will be set for the hearing of the motion in person or by teleconference, at which time the parties will be at liberty to speak as well to the terms of any adjournment.
_________________________
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
February 17, 2000