Woo v. Canada ( National Parole Board )
T-2742-97
Hargrave P.
31/8/98
8 pp.
Case management-Applicant failing to comply with peremptory case management order that applicant bring motion, pursuant to r. 385(1)(b), to allow viva voce expert evidence, failing which any expert evidence at hearing of matter would be in affidavit form-Applicant could not organize outside funding for expert evidence on medical use of marijuana and counsel could not proceed with motion-Not appropriate case to extend peremptory order-Applicant breached conditions of parole by using marijuana, invoking excuse had been prescribed to treat his glaucoma-Later obtained interlocutory order preventing National Parole Board (Board) from suspending parole for smoking medical marijuana until hearing of action-Board then successfully applied to have matter specially managed-Court has power to extend time where "unless" order has been made but not complied with; but that power should be exercised cautiously and with due regard to necessity for maintaining principle orders made to be complied with and not to be ignored: Samuels v. Linzi Dresses Ltd, [1981] 1 Q.B. 115 (C.A.)-Judicial review ought to be available within reasonable time and decision therein with as much speed as possible, with as few of encumbrances and delays associated with trials as possible-No unseemly haste on part of defendant or Court in pressing case on to hearing some 10 months after application for review commenced-Waiting for funding, in context of legal aid, not excuse for allowing time limit to pass: Kiani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1996), 124 F.T.R. 299 (F.C.T.D.)-On one hand, insufficient evidence to determine whether arguable case-On other, to adjourn motion yet again could well jeopardize October hearing date; could well be embarrassment and likely prejudice to Board were its fears borne out and applicant to get into difficulties as result of alleged breach of parole conditions; to leave Board uncertain, at this late date, as to nature of proposed viva voce expert testimony would certainly be prejudicial-Here, no sufficient reason for further time extension on date set in peremptory manner in order that, for good reason, made to be complied with and not intended to be ignored-Proper situation in which to uphold peremptory order-Any expert testimony, on behalf of applicant, must be by affidavit-Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, r. 385(1)(b).