Court File No.: IMM-1316-97

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION

BETWEEN:

ANGELA CHESTERS

Plaintiff

- and -

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA AS REPRESENTED BY
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Defendant

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
OF THE INTERVENER,
COUNCIL OF CANADIANS WITH DISABILITIES

Solicitor for the Plaintiff:
Ronald Poulton Mamann & Associates
74 Victoria Street
Toronto, Ontario M5C 2A5
Tel: (416) 862-0000
Fax: (416) 862-0625

Solicitor for the Defendant:
Morris Rosenberg, Deputy A.G. of Canada
Per: James Brender, Godwin Friday,
Ann-Margaret Oberst Department of Justice
The Exchange Tower, 130 King Street W.
Suite 3400, Box 36
Toronto, Ontario M5X 1K6
Tel: (416) 973-3559/954-8227/973-7537
Fax: (416) 954-8982

Solicitor for the Council of Canadians with Disabilities:
David Baker
Shell Jacobs Lawyers
672 Dupont St.,
Toronto, Ontario M8W 1Y5
Tel: (416) 539-0226, ext. 212
Fax: (416) 539-0565

TO:

The Registrar, Federal Court of Canada

AND TO:

Ronald Poulton
74 Victoria Street Suite 303
Toronto, Ontario M5C 2A5
TEL: (416) 862-0000
FAX: (416) 862-0625
Solicitor for the Plaintiff

AND TO:

Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
James Brender
Godwin Friday
Department of Justice
Ontario Regional Office
The Exchange Tower
130 King Street West
Suite 3400, Box 36
Toronto, Ontario M5X 1K6
TEL: (416) 973-3559 and 954-8227
FAX: (416) 954-8982
Solicitors for the Defendant

Court File No.: IMM-1316-97

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION

BETWEEN:

ANGELA CHESTERS

Plaintiff

- and -

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA AS REPRESENTED BY
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Defendant

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
OF
THE INTERVENER
THE COUNCIL OF CANADIANS WITH DISABILITIES

1. By order dated February 20, 2001, Prothonotary Lafreniere granted the Council of Canadians with Disabilities ("CCD") intervener status in the defendant's motion to have the plaintiff's case dismissed for mootness. CCD was directed to confine its submissions to the second stage of the mootness analysis as set out in the case of Borowski v. Canada (A.G.), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342.

2. The second stage of the Borowski analysis contains the relevant factors relating to the exercise of a court's discretion to adjudicate a matter, notwithstanding the fact that there is no "live controversy" between the parties to the litigation. This discretion is to be judicially exercised, with due regard for established principles.

3. These principles are related to the underlying rationale for the common law mootness doctrine.

4. The first rationale is that the court's competence to resolve legal disputes is rooted in the adversarial system. Without a true adversarial context, there can be no assurance that the issues are well and fully argued. Relevant considerations which support the exercise of a court's discretion to hear a case, which would otherwise be dismissed as moot include the existence of collateral consequences for the litigants, which would maintain the necessary adversarial context, and the involvement of an intervener with a stake in the outcome of the litigation, who would, in effect, substitute its motivation to see the matter conclusively resolved for that of the plaintiff, whose incentive to provide the necessary adversarial context is presumed to have been reduced.

5. The second rationale for the mootness doctrine is the concern for judicial economy. Because the resources available to the courts are both public and scarce, the desire of a private litigant to proceed regardless should not be the predominant consideration. Where it can be demonstrated that allowing the case to proceed will actually contribute to judicial economy by (1) addressing an issue which would otherwise continue to consume the court's resources; (2) permitting an issue of public importance to be determined; or (3) allowing an issue of a recurring nature, but one which might independently evade review, to be resolved in the interests of establishing a precedent. Issues (2) and (3) involve the weighing the economics of judicial involvement against the social cost of continued uncertainty in the law.

6. Finally the court must always demonstrate a measure of awareness of the extent of its proper law-making function, with particular reference to the distinct role of the legislative branch. Here a distinction must be made between deciding a moot question, i.e. one for which a concrete factual basis actually existed, and turning a case into a "private reference" on an abstract question for which no factual basis ever existed.

   THE FACTS

7. The plaintiff's claim, as a consequence of the ruling of Giles A.S. P., is for a declaration that section 19(1) (a) of the Immigration Act (the Act) violates section 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and cannot be saved by section 1. The plaintiff was also permitted by the Prothonotary to seek damages.

8. The defendant takes the position that having offered to land the plaintiff as part of a settlement proposal, her case is moot.

   Concrete Set of Facts

9. There is a complete record upon which this case can be decided, including full productions, discoveries and disclosure. An important fact which has already been established in this case is that the Department has no costing reports or analysis, which would substantiate the position that persons with multiple sclerosis place excessive demands on the health care system.

   Affidavit of Laurie Beachell dated February 14, 2001, Motion Record of Council of Canadians with Disabilities, para. 32

10. According to a policy document of Department of Citizenship and Immigration (the Department) dated October 12, 2000 and entitled "Exemptions from Excessive Demands Bar", "persons in Canada found to be Convention refugees by the Immigration and Refugee Board, and their dependants, are already exempt from the excessive demands assessment". It makes the point that it is "inconsistent" for Canada to accept that a Convention refugee overseas is in need of protection, but treat them as inadmissible because they would cause excessive demands on health services. The document also states, "It is planned that family class sponsored spouses and dependent children, overseas Convention refugees, as well as persons in need of protection and their dependents, would be exempt from inadmissibility based upon excessive demand on health and social services". Finally, it states "The financial impact on the provinces and territories from these excessive demand exemptions is expected to be relatively small". This would tend to substantiate the contention of the plaintiff that people with disabilities are not an economic liability to the country, and support the plaintiff's argument that the Act's discriminatory impact cannot be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

11. The federal government passed amendments to section 19 (1) (a) in 1992. They have yet to be proclaimed.

    Affidavit of Laurie Beachell dated February 4, 2001, Motion Record of Council of Canadians with Disabilities, para. 19

    Adversarial Context

12. The Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD) is the national cross-disability organization. It has developed an enviable record of having intervened in most of the important cases, in which the human and Charter rights of persons with disabilities have been determined by the courts.

    Affidavit of Laurie Beachell dated February 14, 2001, Motion Record of Council of Canadians with Disabilities, para. 10

13. CCD has requested leave of this court to be permitted to intervene in the trial of this matter, to call evidence, and to make oral and written submissions.

    Affidavit of Laurie Beachell dated February 14, 2001, Motion Record of Council of Canadians with Disabilities, para. 36

    Judicial Economy

14. Over the years CCD has been involved in a series of cases which involve the denial of immigration status to individuals and their family members because of a person's disability. Where the person was able to draw sufficient attention to the discriminatory practice of denying the him or her admission to Canada, either by going to the media, by writing letters to the Department, or by initiating a Charter challenge to section 19(1)(a), the Minister would offer the person a Minister's Permit. In this way the Department has been successful in avoiding having the courts adjudicate on the constitutionality of subsection 19(1)(a).

    Affidavit of Laurie Beachell dated February 14, 2001, Motion Record of Council of Canadians with Disabilities, para. 21

15. From CCD's perspective, the insurance of a Minister's Permit to a person bears no relation to the demands that person is likely to make on Canada's health services. Instead it reflects the capacity of the individual to challenge the discriminatory nature of the legislation, either through the courts or in the political arena.

    Affidavit of Laurie Beachell dated February 14, 2001, Motion Record of Council of Canadians with Disabilities, para. 22

16. If people lack the necessary economic and social resources and/or support from organizations such as the churches and CCD, they will continue to suffer from the law's discriminatory effects. They are its invisible, but no less real, victims.

    Affidavit of Laurie Beachell dated February 14, 2001, Motion Record of Council of Canadians with Disabilities, para. 24

17. These individual cases consume not only the resources of the individuals themselves, their families, organizations such as CCD and the churches, but they also consume the precious time of the courts, which oversee the initial stages of cases involving Charter challenges, but are never permitted to adjudicate on the issue of the constitutionality of section 19(1)(a), an issue they all share in common. Consequently, more court time is consumed in serving as the de facto gateway to a Minister's Permit than would be required to permit Ms. Chester's case to proceed through to its conclusion, setting a precedent in the process.

    Affidavit of Laurie Beachell dated February 14, 2001, Motion Record of Council of Canadians with Disabilities, para. 25 and 25

18. CCD has attempted to have this issue litigated in the past. Each time litigation was initiated, the Department responsible for immigration issues would grant the individual litigant a Minister's Permit. As a result the litigation would be terminated and the discriminatory practice would continue. It is CCD's position that this pattern of issuing Minister's permits to those privileged enough to be able to afford the price of admission to the courts is an abuse of the power and contrary to the objectives set out in section 3 of the current Act.

    Affidavit of Laurie Beachell dated February 14, 2001, Motion Record of Council of Canadians with Disabilities, para. 23 and 26

19. The challenged section of the Act is based upon, and contributes to the pervasive negative stereotype of persons with disabilities, including those who are permanent residents of Canada, as a drain on society. By focusing on their needs, and disregarding their contributions, the Act compounds the negative attitudes that represent a major obstacle to the social integration of persons with disabilities. The Supreme Court of Canada in cases such as Granovsky v. Minister of Employment and Immigration [2000] 1 S.C.R. 703 has recognized how debilitating these socially constructed barriers can be.

    Affidavit of Laurie Beachell dated February 14, 2001, Motion Record of Council of Canadians with Disabilities, para. 30

    THE ISSUE

20. Even if the plaintiff's claim is moot, which is contested by the intervener as well as the plaintiff, is this a case in which this honourable Court should exercise its discretion and permit the case to proceed to judgment in the public interest?

    ARGUMENT

    I Adversarial Context

21. The intervener leaves the issue of collateral issues, which are of importance to the plaintiff herself.

22. CCD is committed to intervening at trial, to the calling of witnesses, to actively cross-examining witnesses when it is of the view that issues of importance have not been fully explored, and to providing the court with fully researched closing submissions.

23. It is clear that the challenge to the constitutionality of the section of the Act ensures that this remains a "live controversy" for Her Majesty.

24. It is submitted that CCD's involvement assures the Court, if any assurance was necessary, that Ms. Chester's challenge to the law will be fully developed, and the adversarial context will be real.

    II Judicial Economy

25. Over and above the abuse of the legislative powers available under the Act, the issuance of Minister's Permits in an attempt to avoid having challenges to the Act's constitutionality adjudicated upon their merits, is an abuse of this honourable Court's process. Instead of looking to the Federal Court to dispense justice, those having the means to be able to afford a Charter challenge have come to regard legal fees as the price of admission to Canada for those, who if they had lacked the means would otherwise have been denied admission.

26. It is respectfully submitted that a proper case, such as Ms. Chester's, should be permitted to proceed to its conclusion in order to cause this state of affairs to come to an end, one way or another.

27. While this seemingly never ending series of Charter applications may not consume much of this Court's scarce resource of trial time, it nevertheless consumes many of the Court's valuable administrative and interlocutory resources.

28. If this case is not permitted to proceed to trial, it is uncertain low long it will be before another such opportunity will arise. Those who are desperate for permanent status in Canada usually do not have the resilience to see a case through to its conclusion when tempted by the blandishment of a Minister's Permit. Where that does not suffice to gain a plaintiff's acquiescence, this case demonstrates that a Charter litigant can be offered landed immigrant status. It is readily apparent that Ms. Chester's case involves an issue of a recurring nature, which might evade resolution, if it is not permitted to continue.

29. The issue at the core of this case: the constitutionality of section 19(1)(a) of the Act, is regarded by the CCD as an issue of national importance. This is not only because of its impact on persons with disabilities from abroad, who would be welcomed as new Canadians were it not for their disability; but of equal importance is its discriminatory impact upon Canadians with disabilities who are stigmatized by this legislation's failure to recognize that disabled people make contributions to Canadian society, as well as benefit from its social safety net.

    III Concrete Set of Facts

30. The plaintiff has not only aggressively and thoroughly explored the facts of the case relating to her own particular circumstances, but has also laid a complete factual groundwork for a serious Charter challenge. Far from being a "private reference", this case involves a plaintiff to whom an offer of settlement has been made and who has rejected it as unsatisfactory. She has not been unconditionally landed by the defendant. It would be improper for this Court to probe beyond the facts before it, or to engage in conjecture about the reasons why a litigant may have found an offer of settlement to be unsatisfactory. If these issues are to be explored, the proper time and place would be when the matter of costs is discussed at the end of the proceeding.

31. While it is always important that the courts not usurp the proper role of the legislature, it is respectfully submitted that in this case it is either or both of the executive, and the administrative arms of government which have appropriated the legitimate function of the courts, i.e. to exercise constitutional oversight over the legislation passed by Parliament.

All of which is respectfully submitted at Toronto this 27th day of February, 2001.

DAVID BAKER

Counsel to the Council of Canadians with Disabilities

Court File No.: IMM-1316-97

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION

BETWEEN:

ANGELA CHESTERS

Plaintiff

- and -

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA AS REPRESENTED BY
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Defendant

WRITTEN REPRESENTATION

OF THE COUNCIL OF CANADIANS WITH DISABILITIES

A. Overview

1. The CCD seeks to have its motion to intervene heard on February 20, 2001 at 9:30 a.m., the date, time and place set for the Defendant's motion to dismiss for mootness. The CCD seeks to intervene in the Defendant's motion to dismiss for mootness and thereafter, intervene in the trial because it raises issues of national importance concerning the equality rights of persons with disabilities.

2. As a national organization representing a broad range of persons with disabilities, the CCD has a direct and genuine interest in this trial, and is uniquely positioned to provide this Honourable Court with the perspective of persons with disabilities on the importance equality rights issues which it raises.

   Affidavit of Laurie Beachell, Sworn February 14, 2001, para. 1

3. This case is of national importance and raises issues where it is in the public interest to have a decision on the constitutionality of subsection 19(1)(a) of the Immigration Act. Statistics show that persons with disabilities are among the most disadvantaged groups in Canada and face significant discrimination in Canadian Society. People with disabilities are frequently victims of prejudice and paternalistic and stereotypical ideas about the quality of their existence and their ability to contribute socially or economically to our society. A prominent myth is the view that persons with disabilities are excessive costs to the social and health care system. Subsection 19(1)(a) of the Act is clearly based on the stereotype and negative attitudes that people with disabilities have little to contribute to society except as excessive demands on the health care system.

   Affidavit of Laurie Beachell, Sworn February 14, 2001, para. 27-31

4. This assertion is supported by the circumstances of the case before this Honourable Court. Immigration officials in this case have been unable to substantiate any claim of excessive demands on the health care system. In addition, they have not provided any "costing" reports or analysis which support the assertion that Ms. Chesters would have made excessive demands on the health care system. Therefore, Immigration officials have based their decision solely on the fact that Ms. Chesters had a disability, specifically multiple sclerosis. Therefore, the decision under subsection 19(1)(a) was made arbitrarily and unsubstantiated.

   Affidavit of Laurie Beachell, Sworn February 14, 2001, para. 32

   B. Background and Information about CCD

5. The CCD is a national, not-for-profit umbrella organization, which represents people with a variety of disabilities and is the Canadian representative on Disabled Peoples International, a body which has been accorded consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council. The CCD is composed of provincial and national disability organizations. The CCD is very experienced and knowledgeable with respect to disability related issues in general, and in particular, the discriminatory effect of subsection 19(1)(a) of the Act on persons with disabilities.

   Affidavit of Laurie Beachell, Sworn February 14, 2001, para. 4-6, 9

6. The CCD has the following specific mandate:

   1. to improve the status of persons with disabilities;
      
      
   2. to promote self-help for persons with disabilities;
      
      
   3. to provide a democratic structure for persons with disabilities to voice concerns;
      
      
   4. to monitor federal legislation affecting persons with disabilities;
      
      
   5. to promote policies determined by persons with disabilities in Canada;
      
      
   6. to share information and cooperate with disability organizations in Canada and in other countries;
      
      
   7. to establish a positive image of persons with disabilities in Canada; and,
      
      
   8. to pursue test case Charter litigation and legal education.

   Affidavit of Laurie Beachell, Sworn February 14, 2001, para. 7-8

7. CCD, along with other disability-related organizations, have long sought legislative amendments to the Act to remove the offending clause (i.e. subsection 19(1)(a)) and to ensure that stereotypical understanding of disability do not prohibit persons with disabilities from immigrating to Canada. The CCD has consulted with the federal government and has proposed changes to the Act to eliminate the discriminatory provision.

   Affidavit of Laurie Beachell, Sworn February 14, 2001, para. 11-14, 17-18

8. CCD is aware that many corporations and universities have recruited world class executives and academics. These people initially accepted offers of employment, but ultimately had to turn them down because either the person or a member of his or her family had a disability that led to their denial of admission to Canada pursuant to subsection 19(1)(a) of the Act. It is apparent that Canada is the net loser when world class talent which could be vitalizing our economy, research and academia are lost due to this discriminatory provision.

   Affidavit of Laurie Beachell, Sworn February 14, 2001, para. 16

   C. CCD's broader perception on subsection 19(1)(a) of the Act

9. The CCD is familiar with, and understands, the difficulties faced by persons with disabilities, including the difficulties faced by individuals who are denied immigration to Canada because of a disability or because of a family member with a disability. The CCD believes that it can make a fresh and helpful contribution to this Honourable Court's determination of this case by providing a broader perception on the issue of discrimination on the basis of disability in the Act. The CCD has been granted intervenor status in fifteen Supreme Court of Canada cases. In addition, CCD has been granted intervenor status before regulatory and administrative tribunals.

   It is respectfully submitted that its participation will provide the Court with a broad perspective that can only be presented by persons with disabilities and their families.

   Affidavit of Laurie Beachell, Sworn February 14, 2001, para. 10, 35

   D. Mootness Issue

10. It is respectfully submitted that Ms. Chesters' claim is not moot even if she is granted a Minister's Permit or landed immigrant status. The CCD has long been assisting individual persons who have been denied immigration because their child, parent or spouse had a disability. CCD assisted by providing media attention and/or by writing to the Department responsible for immigration issues. When a sufficiently high profile was achieved, individuals would obtain a Minister's Permit. In every Charter case of which CCD is aware, the Department offered a Minister's Permit in what was inevitably a successful attempt to avoid having the Courts adjudicate on the constitutionality of subsection 19(1)(a).

    Affidavit of Laurie Beachell, Sworn February 14, 2001, para. 21

11. CCD has also attempted to have the discriminatory practice litigated before the Courts. However, each time litigation was initiated, the Department responsible for immigration issues would grant a special Minister's Permit. Thus, the litigation would be terminated and the discriminatory practice would continue.

    Affidavit of Laurie Beachell, Sworn February 14, 2001, para. 26

12. It is respectfully submitted that individuals who either had the resources and/or were able to receive support from organizations and/or the CCD would be given individual remedies (i.e. a Minister's Permit). However, there is no change in the law and the discriminatory practice continues to affect other individual persons with disabilities and individuals with family members with disabilities. From CCD's perspective, the issuance of Minister's Permit to a person has no relation to the demands the person is likely to make on Canada's health services. In fact, it is CCD's position that the issuance of Minister's Permit is an abuse of power by the government, contrary to the intent of section 3 of the current Act.

    Affidavit of Laurie Beachell, Sworn February 14, 2001, para. 23

13. The individual cases continue to consume CCD's scarce resources. CCD wishes to have a decision about the lawfulness of subsection 19(1)(a) and the administrative practices being following by the Department. There are many individuals with disabilities who are denied admission to Canada because of the discriminatory practice contained with subsection 19(1)(a), but who lack the necessary economic and social resources and/or support from organizations to pursue individual remedies through the media or the courts. These people do not receive Minister's Permits and therefore are invisible victims of Canada's discriminatory admission policy.

    Affidavit of Laurie Beachell, Sworn February 14, 2001, para. 22-24

    E. Human Dignity Issue

14. The purpose of Section 15 of the Charter is:

    …to prevent the violation of essential human dignity and freedom through the imposition of disadvantage, stereotyping, or political or social prejudice, and to promote a society in which all persons enjoy equal deserving of concern, respect and consideration. Legislation which effects differential treatment between individuals or groups will violate this fundamental purpose where those who are subject to differential treatment fall within one or more enumerated or analogous grounds, and where the stereotypical application of presumed group or personal characteristics, or otherwise has the effect of perpetuating or promoting the view that the individual is less capable, or less worthy of recognition or value as a human being or a member of Canadian society.

    Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497 (Iacobucci J.) at para. 51

15. Iacobucci J. defined human dignity for the purposes of analysis under section 15(1) of the Charter as follows:

    Human dignity means an individual or group feels self-respect or self-worth. It is concerned with physical and psychological integrity and empowerment. Human dignity is harmed by unfair treatment premised upon personal traits or are sensitive to the needs, capacities, and merits of differential individuals, taking into account the context underlying their differences. Human dignity is harmed when individuals and groups are marginalized, ignored, or devalued, and is enhanced when laws recognize the full place of all individuals and groups within Canadian society. Human dignity with the meaning of the equality guarantee does not relate to the status or position of an individual in society per se, but rather concerns the manner in which a person legitimately feels when confronted by a particular law…

    Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497 (Iacobucci J.) at para. 53

16. The discriminatory attitude that a person with a disability is a "burden" on the health care system goes to the issue of "human dignity". By this attitude, people with disabilities are devalued and dehumanized because there is an assumption that persons with disabilities cannot work or function in society without being a burden on society and that they will never be able to work or function in society without being a substantial burden on society. There is no weight given to the individual needs, capacities or merits of people with disabilities or the positive contributions made by them in our society.

    Affidavit of Laurie Beachell, Sworn February 14, 2001, para. 33

    E. Effect of the systemic discrimination of subsection 19(1)(a) of the Act on Canadians with Disabilities

17. It is respectfully submitted that not only potential immigrants are devalued and dehumanized, but also Canadian citizens with disabilities are given the "message" that a disability in itself is enough to prevent a person from becoming a landed immigrant in Canada. Furthermore, they are given the message that there is nothing a disabled person can contribute to our society nor can they overcome the attitude that they are a "burden" or have "excessive demands" on our health care system. Therefore, the effect of the Act also has the effect of continuing to devalue persons with disabilities who presently live in Canada and are Canadian citizens.

    Affidavit of Laurie Beachell, Sworn February 14, 2001, para. 34

    F. Legal Argument if Leave to Intervene is granted

18. If leave to intervene is granted, the CCD will take no position on the specific facts of this case, or on the appropriate disposition in relation to Ms. Chesters personally. CCD wishes to participate in the mootness motion and the trial. Because of the CCD's broader perspective on the issue, the CCD wishes to be entitled to call a maximum of two witnesses; examine and cross-examine without duplication of questions posed by other parties and provide this Honourable Court with closing submissions. The CCD wishes to make more general submissions on section 15 of the Charter including:

    1. the direct and systemic discrimination faced by persons with disabilities as result of subsection 19(1)(a) of the Act;
       
       
    2. the negative stereotypes and attitudes which are present in subsection 19(1)(a) of the Act;
       
       
    3. the broader impact of the discrimination on individuals and/or individuals with a family member with disabilities in Canada;
       
       
    4. the appropriate test under section 15 of the Charter; and
       
       
    5. the impact and application of "human dignity" test and the test set out in Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497.

    Affidavit of Laurie Beachell, Sworn February 14, 2001, para. 36

    VI Order Sought

19. The CCD respectfully requests that this Honourable Court grant it the opportunity to make submissions on an issue of importance to Canadians with disabilities and potential Canadians. The CCD, therefore, requests an Order that its Motion be heard on February 20, 2001, the date set for the Defendant's Motion to dismiss for mootness. The CCD further requests that its motion to intervene in the Defendant's Motion to dismiss for mootness and in the trial be granted. The CCD will not seek any order as to costs.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Dated at Toronto on the 14th day of February, 2001

David Baker, Counsel for CCD

TO:

The Registrar, Federal Court of Canada

AND TO:

Ronald Poulton
Jackman, Waldman and Associates
281 Eglinton Avenue East
Toronto, Ontario M4P 1L3
TEL: (416) 482-6501, ext. 219
FAX: (416) 482-9834
Solicitor for the Plaintiff

AND TO:

Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
James Brender
Godwin Friday
Department of Justice
Ontario Regional Office
The Exchange Tower
130 King Street West
Suite 3400, Box 36
Toronto, Ontario M5X 1K6
TEL: (416) 973-3559 and 954-8227
FAX: (416) 954-8982
Solicitors for the Defendant