Frank v. Bottle
T-657-93
Reed J.
29/3/94
15 pp.
Defendants ordered to show cause why they should not be found in contempt of court-Two preliminary issues: (1) whether adequate disclosure given to defendants; (2) whether there was case at all as no show cause order issued or that which issued inadequate-Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 applying to all legal proceedings-Requirements of fundamental justice prescribed by s. 7 meaning individuals must be given sufficient notice of nature of case against them in order to be able to adequately defend themselves-Counsel for defendants referred to R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326 to say similar mechanism and level of disclosure should be ordered: witness statements, notes taken of interviews, all evidence in plaintiff's knowledge-Counsel for plaintiff noted they responded to counsel for defendant's request for disclosure, before trial, by letter stating evidence proposed to adduce, already been disclosed in affidavits filed by only witness proposed to call-Court not prepared to find procedure or disclosure mandated in Stinchcombe required here-Exhaustive disclosure to defendants-Requirements of Charter, s. 7 met-In July 1993, plaintiff granted motion seeking show cause order-No written record of orders filed except transcript of proceedings including oral pronouncement-Counsel for defendants arguing plaintiff should have attented upon Registrar's office and had order taken out-Counsel for plaintiff noted in Federal Court, Registrar does not issue orders, Court does it-S. 7 imposing obligation to disclose sufficient information concerning case to be met and within time frame allowing adequate response: fair hearing-Not imposing technical requirements such as provision of certain documents in certain format when no substantial purpose served-If any defect might have existed, was cured by document filed by Associate Chief Justice in January 1994 where defendants ordered to appear to show cause and declaration written record never filed with Registrar-Oral pronouncement was order-Defendants' motions dismissed-Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, being Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B, Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.) [R.S.C., 1985, Appendix II, No. 44], s. 7.