“Counsel for the Applicants have corresponded with me requesting leave for each set of Applicants to file factums that are more than the 30 pages prescribed by the applicable Practice Direction. They have suggested that in a constitutional Application such as this it will be helpful to the Court to have more detailed and thorough written submissions.
Counsel for the Attorney General does not agree with this proposal. They have indicated in their own correspondence with me that they are satisfied to produce a 30-page responding factum addressing the combined Application.
I of course appreciate the Applicants’ offer of helpfulness. But I am of the view that more help is not always better help.
The 30-page policy is a serious one. “Leave is exceptional and granted sparingly in special circumstances”: Saint John (City) v. Saint John Firefighters’ Association (2010), 2010 CanLII 39428 (NB CA), 362 NBR (2d) 327, at paras 12-13 (NB CA). As the Ontario Court of Appeal observed in OZ Merchandising Inc. v. Canadian Professional Soccer League Inc., 2020 ONCA 532, at para. 4, “[t]he purpose of the 30-page limit is to focus counsel on the issues…” I am not alone among the judiciary in preferring focused and precise over detailed and lengthy.
In weighing a request such as this I will take a cue from philosopher Blaise Pascal or author Mark Twain or whoever else the Internet deigns to credit with the relevant quote.”
Working Families Ontario v. Ontario, 2021 ONSC 3687 (CanLII) at 1-5