Court File and Parties

CITATION: Samuels v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, 2016 ONSC 8070

COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-557570

DATE: 2016-12-21

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

BETWEEN:

Andrie Jerome Samuels, Plaintiff

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario et al., Defendants

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

COUNSEL: Andrie Jerome Samuels, in person by telephone Hart Schwartz and A. Chaudry by telephone, counsel for the Defendants

HEARD: December 21, 2016

Case Conference Endorsement

[1] On November 29, 2016 the court scheduled a case conference by telephone in this action and in a separate application brought by Mr. Samuels under Court File No. CV-16-563344. Since that time, the latter application has come under review under Rule 2.1. The application has been stayed until the Rule 2.1 process is completed.

[2] In this action, Mr. Samuels sues for breach of his Charter rights on the basis that the government has kept him in lockdown too frequently in Toronto South Detention Centre where he remains pending the trial of his criminal charges. The matter was initially brought as an application but was converted to an action.

[3] In convening the case conference, I had the parties notified as follows:

…the purposes of the Case Conference are:

a. to discuss the efficient procedure for resolution of Mr. Samuels’ outstanding or proposed motions;

b. to discuss scheduling of necessary steps in the litigation; and

c. to explore methods to resolve contested issues.

The parties should be aware that at the Case Conference, the court may make orders as to whether and how motions are to proceed. As matter CV-16-557570 is now an action rather than an application and a number of interlocutory motions are being brought, Justice Myers seeks submissions as to whether his Order of September 6, 2016 continues to apply.

[4] The parties agree on the terms of the discovery plan that was enclosed with Mr. Schwartz’s letter dated December 16, 2016. Mr. Samuel’s sole concern was that he does not wish to be inundated with extraneous documents. While he raised the issue of whether the Crown was staffing the jail properly, he says that he does not want to have to bring OPSEU into the action and the scope of the government’s documents may be pushing him in that direction. Mr. Schwartz submits that the government must be entitled to respond to the issues and it is duty-bound to disclose relevant documents in its List of Documents. However, he has taken very positive steps to apply a sense of proportionality to the discovery plan so to try to make documentary and oral discovery manageable. As Mr. Schwartz is attuned to the concern to try to keep production of documents proportional, fair, and comprehensive, I do not think any further direction is required at this time. Rather, an order will go approving the discovery plan in the form submitted with Mr. Schwartz’s letter of December 16, 2016.

[5] It appears that some further, brief, extension of time for production may be required to facilitate Mr. Samuel’s production of his medical records and the government’s productions as set out in the discovery plan. Accordingly, my office will schedule a telephone case conference for late January, 2017 at which dates and next steps will be discussed. In the interim the parties are to continue to make efforts to complete their disclosure of documents.

[6] It is apparent that Mr. Samuels may need some assistance with understanding the scope of examinations for discovery. He will be entitled to examine one witness for discovery as a representative of the government. If the government gives Mr. Samuels grounds to seek further examination(s), he may move accordingly at that time. I referred Mr. Samuels to a recent decision (that Mr. Schwartz will provide to him) that discusses the use of “undertakings” in examinations for discovery.

[7] Finally, I have now been appointed the case management judge in this matter by McEwen J. as delegate of the Regional Senior Justice. The following general directions concern the progress of case management in this matter:

a. The purpose of this case management process is to help ready the plaintiff’s claims to be heard or finally resolved in a fair and just manner, efficiently, affordably, and proportionately.

b. If anyone wishes to contact me to schedule a hearing or a case conference, they may contact the Civil Motions Office to the attention of Mr. Eric Barniske.

c. Rule 1.09 applies to contact with me. Contact should be made only in writing and then only after communication with all parties opposite. Initial contact should be to schedule a call or a hearing and should provide a few suggested times that all agree are convenient. A short, neutral statement of the subject matter at issue may be provided with the request. Argument should not be delivered until scheduled.

d. All other communication with the court should be by written material that are served on counsel or Mr. Samuels and filed in accordance with the Rules.

e. All motions in this proceeding will be heard by me upon a schedule to be set at a scheduling conference by telephone. No motions may be brought in this action except upon leave granted at a scheduling conference. The only exception is in respect of appeals and motions brought in connection with any appeals, if any.

f. Now that the matter is an action rather than an application, there is no longer any need for the direction that I made on September 6, 2016 that Mr. Samuels be brought to court for all motions and the main hearing. Whether hearings require attendance in person will be worked out on a case-by-case basis as matters proceed.

F.L. Myers J.

Date: December 21, 2016