Canadian World Wide Film Festival v. Telefilm Canada, 2005 FC 448

Date:  20050405

 

Docket:  T-66-05

 

Citation:  2005 FC 448

 

Montréal, Quebec, April 5, 2005

 

Present:          RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY

 

 

BETWEEN:

 

                                      CANADIAN WORLD WIDE FILM FESTIVAL

 

                                                                                                                                            Applicant

 

                                                                           and

 

 

                                                           TELEFILM CANADA

                                                                             

                                                                                                                                        Respondent

 

 

 

Motion in writing by the respondent to dismiss or, in the alternative, set aside the application for judicial review by the applicant, at the preliminary stage of the proceeding.

 

                                          [Sections 56 to 59, paragraph 221(1)(a), and

                                 sections 302, 303 and 369 of the Federal Courts Rules]

 

 

                                            REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

 

 

[1]               On January 14, 2005, the applicant filed an application for judicial review (the application by the applicant) of two decisions of the respondent: one concerning a call for proposals, dated September 7, 2004 (the Call for Proposals), and the second selecting one of the proposals, dated December 17, 2004 (the decision dated December 17, 2004).                                                     

 

[2]               For the purposes of section 302 of the Federal Courts Rules (the Rules), I do not believe that the two decisions can be viewed as a continuous process or single order within the meaning of that Rule.  Clearly, the application for judicial review of the Call for Proposals was filed outside of the period of thirty (30) days stipulated in subsection 18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. (1985), c. F-7, as amended (the Act).  As a result, the application by the applicant will be suspended while the applicant seeks and obtains from a judge, where applicable, an extension of the period of thirty (30) days with respect to the Call for Proposals.

 

[3]               The applicant’s legal interest in respect of the review of this Call for Proposals can then be considered in the context of the application for an extension of time.

 

[4]               In respect of the review of the decision dated December 17, 2004, however, I cannot find here that the applicant does not have sufficient legal interest for the purposes of subsection 18.1(1) of the Act.

 

[5]               Finally, I do not agree with the respondent that the injunction application contained in the application by the applicant is so vague and imprecise as to be unenforceable.

 

                                                                       ORDER

 

THEREFORE, THE COURT ORDERS:

 

-           That the application by the applicant be stayed while the applicant seeks and obtains from a judge, if appropriate, an extension of the time provided for under subsection 18.1(2) of the Act.

 

-           That the motion by the respondent be dismissed in all other respects, with costs in the cause.

 

 

 

Certified true translation

Michael Palles

                                                             FEDERAL COURT

 

                                                      SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

DOCKET:

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:

T-66-05

 

CANADIAN WORLD WIDE FILM FESTIVAL

 

                                                                                  Applicant

 

v.

 

TELEFILM CANADA

 

                                                                              Respondent

 

MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING AT MONTRÉAL WITHOUT THE APPEARANCE OF PARTIES

 

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:                     RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY

 

DATED:                                                         April 5, 2005

 

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:

 

Annick Bergeron		FOR THE APPLICANT
Chantal Sauriol		FOR THE RESPONDENT

Louis-Paul Cullen		LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

Robinson Sheppard Shapiro Montréal, Quebec		FOR THE APPLICANT
John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada		FOR THE RESPONDENT

Ogilvy Renault Montréal, Quebec

FOR THE RESPONDENT