Canada (Attorney General) v. Bryson

Canada (Attorney General) v. Bryson Court Court of Appeal Date 1998-04-07 Citation 1998 NSCA 80 Docket CA 143802 Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Roscoe, Elizabeth A. (Honourable Justice) (CA); Hart, Gordon L.S. (Honourable Justice); Clarke, Lorne O. (Honourable Chief Justice) Document Type Decision Relations Library Sheet - Canada (Attorney General) v. Bryson - 1998 NSCA 80 - 1998-04-07 - Library Sheet Decision Content Date: 19980407 Docket: C.A. 143802 NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Cite as: Canada (Attorney General) v. Bryson, 1998 NSCA 80 Clarke, C.J.N.S.; Hart and Roscoe, JJ.A. BETWEEN: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA ) John J. Ashley ) for the Appellant Appellant ) - and - ) ) Srinivasen Pillay ) for the Respondent ANNA G. BRYSON ) ) Respondent ) Appeal Heard: ) April 7, 1998 ) ) ) Judgment Delivered: ) April 7, 1998 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) THE COURT: Leave to appeal refused from remarks made by a Chambers judge, per oral reasons for judgment by Clarke, C.J.N.S., Hart and Roscoe, JJ.A. concurring. C.A. No. 143802 NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA ) ) Appellant ) - and - ) REASONS FOR ) JUDGMENT BY: ANNA G. BRYSON ) ) CLARKE, C.J.N.S. ) (Orally) Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) The reasons for judgment of the Court were delivered orally by: CLARKE, C.J.N.S.: By an interlocutory notice, the respondent applied to a Chambers judge pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 18 to have specific dates set for examinations for discovery and to have a named person produced by the appellant to give evidence on discovery. After hearing counsel of the parties, the chambers judge rendered a decision in which he expressed his views on certain aspects of various Civil Procedure Rules and some federal and provincial legislation and regulations. At the end of his remarks he responded to the issues prompted by the interlocutory application by saying: Open court is not the most appropriate place for determining such issues. The less formal setting of a conference is preferable to the present formality. In view of the apparent delays and the apparent inability of counsel to settle matters normally agreed, I am prepared to order an immediate conference under Rule 26. At that conference, I will be prepared to exercise my authority under Rule 26.01(e) including the possibility of setting a deadline for the Deputy Attorney General to make a designation, setting dates for an application to designate further witnesses, and setting dates for the discovery examinations. The appellant brings this appeal alleging that if the general remarks made by the Chambers judge constitute a formal decision, then he erred in law in several respects. On their face the views expressed by the Chambers judge appear to us to be Page: 2 obiter dicta - more for his own use than the parties. This is also evident by his closing remarks which are: In case these issues come before me again, I will have this decision transcribed and circulated. The record does not reveal that a formal order was issued by the Chambers judge. It appears the issues underlying the application were resolved at the conference level without incident. These were in fact the live issues to which the chambers judge responded. The respondent has not filed a factum in this appeal. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused. Clarke, C.J.N.S. Concurred in: Hart, J.A. Roscoe, J.A.