Date: 20001211
Docket: T-1241-00
BETWEEN:
MAMAR, INC.
Plaintiff
- and -
RESULTS MARKETING LTD.
carrying on business as HANDYMAN
SOLUTIONS and the said RESULTS MARKETING LTD.
Defendants
UPON MOTION, dated the 8th day of December, 2000, on behalf of the plaintiff for an Order that the motion to require the defendant to show cause as to why it should not be held in contempt be adjourned to Winnipeg at the next sitting of the Court in January, 2001; and
UPON hearing counsel for the parties by way of a conference call;
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD, J.
[1] Counsel for the parties have indicated that because the action underlining the Contempt Application has been settled, they would like to see the Contempt Application withdrawn and terminated. However, as stated in Canada Post Corporation v. C.U.P.W.1, the settlement of the conflict between the parties is far from sufficient reason to justify the Court exercising its discretion to terminate contempt of court proceedings:
| It is not disputed that the Court has discretion in this matter. In The Law of Contempt, by Borrie and Lowe, Butterworths, 1973, c.II, at page 372, we find the following: |
| The better view would seem to be that if a party does not seek to invoke the aid of the court to enforce a judgment, no contempt proceedings are likely to be brought, and to this extent the contempt can be waived, but once proceedings have been brought, then the party has not right to waive the contempt, and it is a matter for the court's discretion whether the offender should be punished (see also Tony Poje and others v. Attorney General for British Columbia, [1953] 1 S.C.R. 516). |
| Contempt of court is a matter of public interest, and the principle that orders of the Court must be obeyed deserves the greatest protection. Moreover, I believe, this is what my colleague Walsh J. was saying in Viking Corporation v. Aquatic Fire Protection Ltd., 2 CPR (3d) 470, at page 472. In my view, it is only in truly exceptional cases that the Court should exercise its discretion to terminate contempt of court proceedings, such as, for example, if a key witness has died or become incompetent, or when essential and necessary evidence has disappeared through no fault of the parties. Accordingly, in the case at bar, I am not satisfied that justice would be better served if, for the stated reason of improving labour relations between the parties, permitting the application to be withdrawn as requested would risk eroding the authority and prestige of the courts. |
[2] Accordingly, the motion to require the defendant to show cause as to why it should not be held in contempt is adjourned pro forma at the Vancouver sitting of the Court on January 22, 2001, in order to allow counsel for the plaintiff to serve and file a Notice of Motion, made returnable in the same city and on the same date, to have this Court exercise its discretion to terminate the contempt of court proceedings in this matter.
(Sgd.) "Yvon Pinard"
Judge
December 11, 2000
Vancouver, British Columbia
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| STYLE OF CAUSE: Mamar, Inc. |
v.
Results Marketing Ltd et al
| PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia |
| DATE OF HEARING: December 11, 2000 |
| REASONS FOR ORDER OF PINARD, J. |
APPEARANCES:
| Mr. Jeffrey Harris For the Plaintiff |
| Mr. John Whyte For the Defendants |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Myers Weinberg
Barristers and Solicitors
| Winnipeg, Manitoba For the Plaintiff |
Lakes Straith
Barristers and Solicitors
| North Vancouver, BC For the Defendants |
__________________
1T-1944-87, March 30, 1988 (F.C.T.D.)
Email this Content