No reason why proceedings could not be heard one after the other

JUDICIAL REVIEW

No reason why proceedings could not be heard one after the other

Appeal by appellants from decision of Federal Court confirming decision by prothonotary refusing to grant appellants’ motion for order that appellants’ judicial review applications be heard together or in the alternative that they be heard consecutively, with single book of authorities being filed. Appeal allowed. Decision was set aside. It was ordered that applications for judicial review be heard one after other before same judge at time and place to be fixed by judicial administrator, and single book of authorities being filed for both proceedings. Prothonotary erred in failing to address appellants’ alternative submission that proceedings be heard one after other before same judge. There was no reason why proceedings could not be heard one after other before same judge. No prejudice has been shown to result from separate but successive hearings.