Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

Moscone v. M.N.R.

T-1904-96

Hargrave P.

4/5/99

4 pp.

Pre-trial-Action involving plea for relief from ascertained forfeiture of $12,500-At pre-trial conference, contrary to r. 260, defendant Minister did not have authorized representative present with sufficient authority to make discussion of settlement required by r. 263 in any way meaningful-Counsel for Minister wrote, week before settlement conference, to say representative would come from Ottawa, on condition representative would not have final decision-making authority-Not appropriate for several reasons-First, settlement discussion mandated by Rules at pre-trial conference going nowhere because Minister's representative did not have useful authority-Second, terms of attendance already set out in direction: not for Crown to impose conditions at this point-Third, such procedure far too complicated for matter involving $12,500-Defendant may bring motion for relief from instruction MNR present representative with proper decision-making ability at settlement conference-If no relief obtained, representative of Minister with appropriate authority not in attendance, counsel for Minister to show cause why Minister's defence ought not to be struck out-Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, rr. 260, 263.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.