CITATION: Hill v. Ontario (Min. Finance), 2020 ONSC 4823
COURT FILE NO.: TBA
DATE: 20200811
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - DIVISIONAL COURT - ONTARIO
RE: Hill v. Ontario (Min. Finance)
BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.
COUNSEL: Robert Kreklewetz and John Bassindale for the Applicant David Irvine, Laurie Pathyk and Stephen Grieneveld, for the Respondent
DATE: August 6, 2020
CASE MANAGEMENT ENDORSEMENT
[1] This endorsement reflects a case management teleconference held on August 6, 2020.
[2] This application for judicial review motion will be heard by ZOOM videoconference by a panel of three judges of the Divisional Court on November 25, 2020 for an estimated 1.0 days.
[3] The applicant’s materials have been served. The responding party’s materials shall be served by October 9, 2020. Any reply materials shall be served by October 23, 2020.
[4] Counsel for the applicant shall provide a password-protected download-only drop box from which materials may be downloaded and shall provide the court with the URL and password by November 6, 2020.
(a) All documents other than factums shall be uploaded to the drop box in pdf format.
(b) Documents should be labelled in a manner that identifies them clearly for members of the panel so that it is not necessary to open the document to understand what it is. Pages should be numbered sequentially within each pdf. If this is not practical, given the current state of the documents, then individual documents should be uploaded to the drop box in pdf form, so that each document is clearly labelled, enabling the court to find documents quickly.
(c) Factums are to be filed in Word and pdf formats. Where possible, factums should contain hyperlinks for authorities and, if possible, hyperlinks to a “Factum Compendium”, described below.
(d) Books of authorities containing the full text of authorities should not be uploaded to the drop box. However, citations to cases in the factums are to provide, if possible, a hyperlink to the online version of cases. The only exceptions to this principle are authorities not available online, such as excerpts from textbooks, foreign law, or Canadian decisions not reported online: these should be collected in a small brief of unreported authorities and filed in the drop box.
(e) Parties may file a “Factum Compendium” containing single pages or brief portions of cases cited, and brief portions of evidence from the record referenced in the factum, hyperlinked from the factum. Where portions of cases are included in a compendium, the title of proceedings and headnote should be included as well. Where portions of the record are included in a Factum Compendium, the first page of the document and identification of where it may be found in the record should also be provided.
(f) The parties shall file their agreement on the disposition of costs, or, if the parties have not agreed as to costs, then each party shall file its bill of costs, costs outline and any brief supporting materials relied upon in respect to costs.
(g) Each party shall file a counsel sheet setting out the name(s) of all counsel appearing at the hearing and confirming their estimated times for oral argument.
(h) All parties are permitted to (but are not required to) file the following additional documents (in addition to documents permitted under the Rules):
(i) a Factum Compendium, described above; and
(ii) a compendium for oral argument, containing excerpts of evidence and authorities to which counsel intends to refer in oral argument.
(i) All documents for use in the hearing are to be uploaded to the drop box by November 6, 2020, except that compendiums for oral argument, counsel sheets and costs materials may be uploaded by November 23, 2020.
[5] Parties are required to file one paper copy of any document filed for the hearing that previously has not been filed with the court in paper form, once the suspension of ordinary court operations is lifted.
[6] The Respondent will take the position that this matter is not properly before the Divisional Court. Rather, the Respondent will argue that the Applicant must pursue objections to the impugned assessments to an Objection Officer, with any appeals from decisions on objections ultimately lying to a single judge of the Superior Court and not to the Divisional Court. The Respondent will raise this as a substantive defence to the Application and will not move to quash the Application prior to the return date of November 25, 2020. Thus the issues of Divisional Court jurisdiction and/or prematurity will be one of the contested issues on return of the Application.
[7] The court has endorsed its fiat on this endorsement this day; the unsigned version distributed to the parties today has the authority and effect of the signed version, a copy of which will be provided to the parties in due course after the suspension of ordinary court operations is lifted.
D.L. Corbett J.
Date: August 11, 2020