Dragage F.R.P.D. Ltée v. Bouchard
T-1978-93
Nadon J.
26/8/94
10 pp.
Motion to strike certain paragraphs from the affidavit of the mise en cause-In its originating motion the applicant argued Canada Labour Code, s. 230 did not require it to give its employees notice of termination of their employment or to pay them compensation in lieu of notice-Following her inquiry, mise en cause found respondents were entitled to compensation in lieu of notice-R. 332(1) states affidavit shall "be confined to such facts as the witness is able of his own knowledge to prove...."-Any affidavit filed in case before Court must comply with R. 332(1)-Any part of an affidavit containing interpretation of law, personal opinion or hearsay should be struck-Information in impugned paragraphs of affidavit of mise en cause not admissible and these paragraphs must necessarily be struck-Facts contained in paragraph 11 of affidavit constitute hearsay-Paragraph must be struck unless exceptions to hearsay rule apply-Since employees who gave mise en cause information appearing in paragraph 11 are respondents to application for judicial review, necessity test not fulfilled-The exception to the hearsay rule formulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531 and R. v. Smith, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915 does not apply-Motion allowed-Canada Labour Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. L-2, s. 230-Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, R. 332(1).