A-105-81
The Queen in right of Canada as represented by
the Attorney General of Canada (Appellant)
(Defendant)
v.
David Baird, Elizabeth Baird, George A. Bayley,
Neil Baylor, Frederick Field, Marion Field, Ron
Forbes, Edward Kuta, Mira Kuta, Alexander
Leblovic, Carlo Lemma, Brian Moar, Marianne
Moar, Frances Salvo, Mark Smith, Jr., Pauline
Smith, Bruce Wilson and John Gatecliffe
(Respondents) (Plaintiffs)
Court of Appeal, Pratte, Heald and Ryan JJ.—
Toronto, March 8, 1982.
Practice — Appeal from order of Trial Division which
ordered the respondents to supply particulars with respect to
certain paragraphs of the statement of claim, but refused to
make any order under Rules 419 and 474 — Respondents have
since filed a fresh statement of claim — Appeal dismissed as
issues now moot — Federal Court Rules 419 and 474.
APPEAL.
COUNSEL:
Peter A. Vita and Michael W. Duffy for
appellant (defendant).
William D. Dunlop for respondents (plain-
tiffs).
SOLICITORS:
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
appellant (defendant).
Martin, Dunlop, Hillyer & Associates, Burl-
ington, for respondents (plaintiffs).
The following are the reasons for judgment of
the Court delivered orally in English by
PRATTE J.: The appellant was sued by the
respondents in the Trial Division [[1981] 2 F.C.
726]. The appellant applied to the Trial Division
for an order under Rule 419 striking out the
statement of claim and dismissing the action, or, in
the alternative, for an order pursuant to Rule 474
that a question of law (which was not formulated
in the notice of motion) be determined before trial,
or, as a further alternative, for an order for par-
ticulars with respect to certain paragraphs of the
statement of claim.
The appellant is now appealing from the order
of the Trial Division which ordered the respond
ents to supply most of the particulars sought by
the appellant but refused to make any order under
Rules 419 and 474.
It is common ground that, since the order of the
Trial Division was pronounced, the respondents
complied with it by filing a fresh statement of
claim. (This they could do without leave of the
Court, since the appellant had not yet filed her
statement of defence.) In those circumstances, we
cannot help but find that the issues raised on this
appeal have become moot. For that reason, the
appeal will be dismissed with costs without preju
dice, however, to the appellant's right to renew her
application in the Trial Division on the basis of the
fresh statement of claim.
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.