The self-represented Applicant objected to the Respondent’s unilateral request to the Court that a form of Order representing a decision be signed by Veit J. The Respondent had sought a waiver of Rule 9.2(2), given the history of the matter and the Respondent’s inability to obtain comments from the Applicant related to previous Orders. The Respondent had written directly to the Court seeking such a waiver, and had provided the Applicant with a draft Order at that time. The Applicant did not specify any particular complaint with the substance of the proposed Order, but instead asserted that the Rule 9.2(2) procedure was not followed by the Respondent. The Applicant informed the Court that he would not be able to appear in front of Veit J. for a number of months to resolve the contents of the form of Order.

The Court indicated that parties may apply to the Court to resolve a dispute (pursuant to Rule 9.3), but that in this particular case it was not clear whether there was a dispute about the contents of the draft Order. Although the Respondent had relied on Rule 9.4(2)(c) in its request that Veit J. sign the form of Order, Veit J. noted that, strictly speaking, this was not a Rule 9.4(2)(c) situation, in which a party might request that a Clerk of the Court sign an Order. The Court also pointed out that when a Justice is asked to sign a form of Order, while the time limits in Rule 9.2(2) may not apply, the process of consultation set out in Rule 9.2(2) does apply in principle.

In the circumstances of this case, given the timeline of communication between the Applicant and Respondent as it related to the form of Order, the Court was not concerned with any procedural unfairness to the Applicant. Veit J. signed the form of Order as presented, concluding that the Court was acting in the interest of achieving a timely and cost-effective resolution of the matter.