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

[1] By 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.”

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

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

[4] Based 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.

Released: