Court File and Parties

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 412/04 DATE: 2005-10-06

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT

BETWEEN: 407 ETR CONCESSION COMPANY LIMITED (Applicant) AND: REGISTRAR OF MOTOR VEHICLES (Respondent)

BEFORE: C. CAMPBELL J.

COUNSEL: J. Thomas Curry for the Applicant M. Michele Smith for the Respondent

ENDORSEMENT

1By correspondence following telephone communication with counsel, I have been provided with a written submission on behalf of the Registrar, requesting leave further to the leave previously granted for a factum that exceeds the limit prescribed under the Rules. Counsel for the Registrar seeks a further ten pages (to 55) on the basis of the complexity raised since “the Applicant and Respondent differ on the appropriate legal and factual conclusions.”

2It is with some reluctance and only with the expectation that it might assist the panel that this further leave is granted.

3Counsel for the Registrar concedes there may be new issues raised in their material that would make a “reply” factum appropriate.

4Based on the written submission on behalf of 407, I will grant leave to the filing of a reply factum of up to 15 pages but leave to the panel as a matter for cost disposition whether or not any of the extended facta were helpful or useful.

C. CAMPBELL J.