Fortier 2000 Ltée. v. Matiere, 2003 FCT 351

Date: 20030326

Docket: T-611-01

Citation: 2003 FCT 351

Montréal, Quebec, March 26, 2003

Present:           Richard Morneau, Prothonotary

BETWEEN:

                                                               FORTIER 2000 LTÉE

                                                                                                                                                          Plaintiff

                                                                                 and

                                                                MARCEL MATIÈRE

                                                                                                                                                     Defendant

                                                                                 and

                                                            MARCEL MATIÈRE and

                                                         BÉTON PROVINCIAL LTÉE

                                                                                                                           Plaintiffs by counterclaim

                                                                                 and

                                                               FORTIER 2000 LTÉE

                                                                                                                         Defendant to counterclaim

                                               REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY:

[1]                 It appears to me in the circumstances of this case that this motion by the defendant and plaintiffs by counterclaim (the defendant) for further and better particulars regarding paragraph 22 of the plaintiff's amended reply and defence to the counterclaim must be dismissed, with costs.

[2]                 Although the order of January 22, 2003, provided that the defendant could appeal by motion to obtain further and better particulars regarding paragraph 22, the text of paragraph 22 together with the additional particulars provided by the plaintiff on February 20, 2003, should have led the defendant to justify by way of affidavit both the need for additional particulars and the harm caused by this alleged lack of particulars. Each case turns on its own facts in this area of law, and unlike this Court's decision of February 27, 2001, in Contour Optik Inc. v. Hakim Optical Laboratory Ltd. (2001 FCT 125), I do not believe that there is a basic deficiency in these pleadings that warrants further and better particulars.

[3]                 Along the same lines, I do not believe it is necessary for the plaintiff to amend its affidavit of documents.

[4]         This case must move forward and must not become mired in classic difficulties connected to the examinations on discovery. The parties shall govern themselves in accordance with the timetable approved by the Court in a separate order dated today.     

Richard Morneau                                       

Prothonotary

Certified true translation

Mary Jo Egan, LLB

FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

TRIAL DIVISION

Date: 20030326

Docket: T-611-01

Between:

FORTIER 2000 LTÉE

                                    Plaintiff

and

MARCEL MATIÈRE

                                    Defendant

and

MARCEL MATIÈRE and

BÉTON PROVINCIAL LTÉE

                  Plaintiffs by counterclaim

and

FORTIER 2000 LTÉE

                   Defendant to counterclaim

         REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

                          FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                              TRIAL DIVISION

                          SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:

STYLE OF CAUSE:

T-611-01

FORTIER 2000 LTÉE

                                                Plaintiff

and

MARCEL MATIÈRE

                                                Defendant

and

MARCEL MATIÈRE and BÉTON PROVINCIAL LTÉE

                              Plaintiffs by counterclaim

and

FORTIER 2000 LTÉE

                               Defendant to counterclaim

PLACE OF HEARING:Montréal, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING: March 24, 2003

REASONS FOR ORDER OF RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY

DATED:March 26, 2003

APPEARANCES :

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: