Bennett v. Canada (Attorney General)

Bennett v. Canada (Attorney General)

The Prothonotary misapprehended the facts and failed properly to apply the test for admission of additional evidence because the ATIP Release Package was, on the uncontroverted record, available prior to the applicant's affidavit filings; admitting it at this late stage would amount to impermissible case-splitting...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2010 FC 1173
Parties
Applicant: Christopher Bennett; Respondent: The Attorney General for Canada; Respondent: The Minister of Health for Canada
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Mandamus and Constitutional Challenge / Appeal From Prothonotary's Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Order of Prothonotary Lafrenière dated November 1, 2010 set aside; applicant's motion for leave to file additional evidence and a supplementary record pursuant to Rules 312(a) and (c) dismissed; no costs awarded to respondents.
Legal Topics
Section 56 CDSA Exemptions, Rule 312 Additional Evidence, Case Splitting, Access to Information Disclosures, Mandamus, Charter S.2, S.7, S.15 Challenge
Source Language
english
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Public Law Evidence Procedural Law Access to Information Section 56 CDSA Exemptions Rule 312 Additional Evidence +4 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Bennett

Applicant

The Attorney General for Canada

Respondent

The Minister of Health for Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Mandamus and Constitutional Challenge / Appeal From Prothonotary's Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Prothonotary applied the correct test in granting leave to file additional evidence under Rule 312
  2. 2 Whether the ATIP Release Package was available earlier and could have been adduced at an earlier date
  3. 3 Whether admitting the late evidence would constitute impermissible case-splitting or cause undue prejudice

Ratio Decidendi

The Prothonotary misapprehended the facts and failed properly to apply the test for admission of additional evidence because the ATIP Release Package was, on the uncontroverted record, available prior to the applicant's affidavit filings; admitting it at this late stage would amount to impermissible case-splitting and cause delay, so leave to file additional evidence was properly denied on appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Order of Prothonotary Lafrenière dated November 1, 2010 set aside; applicant's motion for leave to file additional evidence and a supplementary record pursuant to Rules 312(a) and (c) dismissed; no costs awarded to respondents.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Order of Prothonotary Lafrenière dated November 1, 2010 set aside