A-666-76
Lawrence H. Mandel (Appellant)
v.
The Queen (Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Jackett C.J. Ottawa, Novem-
ber 16, 1976.
Practice Notice of motion seeking order that this and
eleven other cases be filed under single style of cause using one
set of materials—No precedent Federal Court Rule 1206.
There will be no special order relating to this file, but orders
will issue on each of the other eleven files, if each party
consents, allowing them to adopt the Appeal Book and memo
randum in this case.
APPLICATION in writing under Rule 324.
SOLICITORS:
Perry, Farley & Onyschuk, Toronto, for
appellant.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondent.
The following are the reasons for judgment
rendered in English by
JACKETT C.J.: This is an appeal from a judg
ment of the Trial Division. In the notice of appeal
it is stated that the judgment appealed against was
delivered in a case which was heard "on common
facts or common evidence . .. with eleven other
cases".
A notice of motion has now been filed on this
file seeking an order that
1. The Appellant be allowed to dispense with the necessity of
separately filing materials listed under Rule 1206(3) namely:
(a) the transcript of verbal testimony;
(b) any written or other admissions put before the Court by
any of the parties otherwise than by documents that have
been filed; and
(c) any material that, by a direction under paragraph
1206(2), the Appellant is required to prepare for the use of
the Court; and
2. The Appellant be permitted instead to file a common set of
copies of materials bearing the single style of cause:
BETWEEN:
LAWRENCE H. MANDEL
("Appellant")
AND:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
("Respondent")
3. That all further matters concerning the Appeal of this action
be heard under this single style of cause.
Similar motions were filed in each of the other
appeals referred to in the notice of appeal.
No reference has been made to any rule or
practice of the Court under which there might be
such a "joinder" of appeals from some twelve
different judgments and I do not personally see
how there could be such an order even if there
were authority therefor without grave danger of
serious confusion.
What I propose to do, if each of the parties in
the different appeals indicates its consent thereto
by an appropriate letter to the Registry, is
(1) to make no special order in this file,
(2) to make an order on each of the other
eleven files in the terms of paragraph (1) of the
order sought by the appropriate notice of
motion,
(3) to direct that the Appeal Book to be pre
pared under Rule 1206(2) in each of the other
appeals consist of a page indicating that the
Appeal Book in the Mandel case is adopted by
reference, a copy of the notice of appeal in the
particular case, and any other documents that
pertain exclusively to that case,
(4) to make an order in each of the other cases
that a party may, if he or it sees fit, file a
memorandum adopting his memorandum in the
Mandel case in whole or in part.
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.