COPY PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT DEFENDANTIPLAINTIFF BY COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFFFIRSTDEFENDANT BY COUNTERCLAIM SECOND DEFENDANT BY COUNTERCLAIM THIRD DEFENDANT BY COUNTERCLAIM FOURTH DEFENDANT BY COUNTERCLAIM, FIFTH DEFENDANT BY COUNTERCLAIM, ‘SIXTH DEFENDANT BY COUNTERCLAIM, ‘SEVENTH DEFENDANT BY COUNTERCLAIM 2005 01T 0010 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: WILLIAM MATTHEWS AND: BYRON PRIOR AND BETWEEN: BYRON PRIOR AND: WILLIAM MATTHEWS AND: T.ALEX HICKMAN AND: THOMAS MARSHALL AND: DANNY WILLIAMS. AND: EDWARD M. ROBERTS: AND: JOHN GROSBIE AND: PATTERSON PALMER ‘SUMMARY OF CURRENT DOCUMENT. Court File Number(s): 2005 04 T C010 Date of Fling of Document 4 February 2005 Name of Fling Party or Person: Partners of Patterson Palmer(St John’s office) ‘Application ta which Document Application of the Sith and Seventh being fied relates: Defendants by Counterciaim ostike the Counterclaim in its entirety. Statement of purpose in filing. To-stike the Countarctaim in its entirety INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION RE: An Application of the Sixth and Seventh Defendants By Counterclaim to strike the Counterclaim in it’s entirety pursuant to Rules 14.24 and 11.02 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986 as amended and ss. 93 and 94 of the Judicature Act, RSN 1990, c. J-4as amended.inter Partes) The Application of The Honourable John C. Crosbie, P.C., 0.C., Q.C. the Sith Defendant By Counterciaim, and Patterson Palmer Law, the Seventh Defendant by Counterciaim, in this proceeding, says: Nature of Application 1. The Sixth Defendant By Counterctaim and Applicant, The Honourable Jchn C. Crosbie, P.C., 0.C., Q.C., is an Associate, not a partner as alleged in the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, in the law firm Patterson Palmer Law, in the City of St. John’s, Province of Newfoundtand and Labrador ("The Applicants” and “Crosbie"). ‘The Seventh Defendant By Counterclaim and Applicant, Patterson Palmer Law, is a partnership of five partnerships of lawyers in the Atiantic Provinces with one of those partnerships of lawyers being in the Gity of St. John’s, Province of Newfoundiand and Labrador (The “Applicants" and "Patterson Palmer’). The Seventh Defendant was served at its St. John's office on 21 January 2005. The Plaintiff By Counterclaim, Byron Prior is a resident of Long Pond, Conception Bay South (Prior), and is the Defendant in a defamation claim arising from the creation and. ‘submission of written materials posted on a web site: www_maxpages.com (the “Site’}. ‘The Applicants seek an Order te strike the Counterclaim against each of them in i's entirety.Procedural History 5. ‘The Plaintiff, William Matthews, retained Stephen J. May of Patterson Paimer as his solicitor in respect to a defamation claim against Prior. A Statement of Claim was issued on 4 January, 2005. ‘The Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, naming Crosbie and Patterson Palmer as the Sith and Seventh Defendants By Counterclaim, respectively, was filed on 21 January 2005. ‘An Ex Parte Application was brought by the Plaintiff and heard before the Honourable Chiof Justice Groen on 21 January 2005. An Order was granted to prohibit the DefendantPlaintif By Counterclaim from publishing, causing to have published, distributing or causing to have distributed the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim until such further Order of the Court; that the Court's file in this proceeding not be made available for review by anyone other than the parties or their legal counsel until such further Order of the Court; that the requirements relating to the obligations of the Defendants to the Counterclaim to file Defences be waived pending the determination of the Application to strike the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim in its entirety; and, that the content of the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim not be published or broadcast in any manner whatsoever until such further Order of the Court.9. The 21 January 2005 Order also made the Application retumable on 26 January 2005. On 26 January 2005, the Chief Justice Green directed the Sith and Seventh Defendants by Counterclaim to bring their own Applications to strike the Counterclaim with service permitted via email. 10. The Applicants have submitted this Application to be heard contemporaneously with the Plaintif’s Application on 9 February 2005. Material Facts 41, The Applicants submit that the Counterclaim, contains no cause of action against Crosbie or Patterson Palmer, and accordingly, they have improperly been added as patties to the within action. 12. “The Counterclaim against Patterson Palmer constitutes an abuse of process as itis an asserted consequence, the assertions being made by a person whe the Applicants submiitis responsible for the drafling of the pleading but is nota party, of acting on behalf cof William Matthews on his claim against Byron Prior or otherwise failing to act against the interests of Wiliam Matthews who at all material times was @ Palterson Palmer client. The Counterctaim against Crosbie constitutes an abuse of process as it is an asserted consequence, the assertion being made on behalf of Prior, in a2 September 2004 letter addressed to Crosbie, that proceedings would be instituted against Crosbieif he failed to act against the interests of William Matthews, who at all material times was a Patterson Palmer dlient, in respect of Byron Prior's allegations.13. The Applicants apply to strike the Counterclaim in its’ entirety pursuant to Rules 14.24 and 11.02 of the Rules of Supreme Court, 1986 as amended and ss. 93 and 94 of the Judicature Act, RSN 1990, c. J-4, as amended. The Applicanis submit the Counterclaim against each of them should be struck in its entirety as no causation to the claimed damages is established, insufficient facts are pleaded to frame a cause of action, and the parties named have no bearing on the subject claim. The Counterclaim against the Sith and Seventh Defendants by Counterclaim further constitutes an abuse of process in contradiction of Rule 14.24(d) and an improper use of a Counterclaim pursuantto the Judicature Act, RSN 1990, ¢.J-4, as amended, ss. 94(1)(b) and Rule 11.02. Other Pertinent information and References 18. NA Relief Sought 16. The Applicants seek an Order striking the Counterclaim against each of them in its entirety, including that portion of the Style of Cause referring to the Sixth and Seventh Defendants by Counterclaim. q7. Further, the Applicants seek costs on a solicitor and client basis.sv DATED at St John’s, Newfoundiand and Labradorthis 7” day of February, 2008, stépl ai PATTERSON PALMER: Suite 1000, Scotia Centre 235 Water Street P.O. Box 610 St. John’s, NL A1C 5L3 Solicitors for the Sixth and Seventh Defendants by Counterciaim TO: Byron Prior Reader Hill Road Long Pond, NL AOA 3Y0 The DefendantPtaintiff by Counterclaim ISSUED at St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador this / day of February, 2005, Oyen vera ere ann