Date: 20020924
Docket: T-1125-02
Neutral Citation: 2002 FCT 996
Montréal, Quebec, September 24, 2002
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Blais
BETWEEN:
FOLIOT INC.
Plaintiff
and
HEARTWOOD MANUFACTURING LTD.
and
MEDICINE HAT COLLEGE
Defendants
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
This is a motion to amend a direction issued by the Honourable Madam Justice Hansen dated August 22, 2002.
[1] The plaintiff is requesting that the cross-examinations on the affidavits of the defendant, which were to be held from September 16 to 18, 2002, be conducted instead by teleconference at 5:00 p.m on September 24, 25, 26 or 27, 2002, under rule 88 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998.
[2] The defendant objects on the ground that the cross-examinations must be conducted pursuant to rule 90 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998.
[3] Rules 88 and 90 read as follows:
|
88. (1) Subject to rules 234 and 296, an examination may be conducted orally or in writing.
|
88.(1) Sous réserve des règles 234 et 296, l'interrogatoire se fait soit de vive voix soit par écrit.
|
|
(2) The Court may order that an examination out of court be recorded by video recording or conducted by video-conference or any other form of electronic communication.
|
(2) La Cour peut ordonner que l'interrogatoire d'une personne hors cour soit enregistré sur cassette vidéo ou effectué par vidéo-conférence ou par tout autre moyen de communication électronique.
|
|
90. (1) Where a person to be examined on an oral examination resides in Canada and the person and the parties cannot agree on where to conduct the oral examination, it shall be conducted in the place closest to the person's residence where a superior court sits.
|
90 (1) Lorsque la personne devant subir un interrogatoire oral réside au Canada et n'arrive pas à s'entendre avec les parties sur l'endroit où se déroulera l'interrogatoire, celui-ci est tenu à l'endroit où siège une cour supérieure qui est le plus proche de la résidence de la personne.
|
|
(2) Where a person to be examined on an oral examination resides outside Canada, the time, place, manner and expenses of the oral examination shall be as agreed on by the person and the parties or, on motion, as ordered by the Court.
|
(2) Lorsque la personne devant subir un interrogatoire oral réside à l'étranger, l'interrogatoire est tenu aux date, heure et lieu, de la manière et pour les montants au titre des indemnités et dépenses dont conviennent la personne et les parties ou qu'ordonne la Cour sur requête.
|
|
(3) No person is required to attend an oral examination unless reasonable travel expenses have been paid or tendered to the person.
|
(3) Nul ne peut être contraint à comparaître aux termes d'une assignation à comparaître pour subir un interrogatoire oral que si des frais de déplacement raisonnables lui ont été payés ou offerts.
|
[4] Rule 90 explicitly states where the out of court examination must be conducted, while rule 88 gives the judge a certain leeway: the judge may order, under certain unspecified circumstances, that an examination be conducted by "any other form of electronic communication".
[5] There is no doubt in my mind that rule 90 is the general rule, and rule 88 is the exception.
[6] The party invoking the exception must therefore prove there are exceptional circumstances that justify not following the general rule.
[7] Despite commendable efforts, the plaintiff has not convinced me that it is necessary to depart from the general rule.
[8] In fact, the plaintiff argues that the cost of sending its lawyer from Quebec to Alberta and British Columbia is exorbitant, but it has not calculated those costs or shown that the party is unable to pay.
[9] Moreover, the suggested absence of a minimum of four days is clearly exaggerated under the circumstances.
[10] In addition, the plaintiff is minimizing the inconvenience and the potential detriment to the defendant, which must ensure that its interests will be protected under the circumstances.
[11] The plaintiff must have known when it brought its action that it would have to incur some travel expenses to advance the proceeding, given that it is an intellectual property matter in which the alleged infringements occurred in other provinces.
[12] Nor can counsel for the plaintiff assert her lack of availability to request that the ordinary rules not apply.
[13] The plaintiff has not satisfied me that the interests of justice would be better served by a teleconference hearing under the present circumstances.
ORDER
Accordingly, the Court orders that the plaintiff's motion be dismissed.
The parties shall respect the spirit of the direction issued on August 22, 2002, by Hansen J., and that direction is amended as follows:
a) The parties shall agree on a date to conduct cross-examinations on the affidavits under rule 90 on or before October 18, 2002;
b) The answers to the undertakings, if any, given at the cross-examinations shall be provided on or before October 31, 2002;
c) The plaintiff's motion record shall be served and filed on or before November 13, 2002;
d) The defendant's motion record shall be served and filed on or before November 22, 2002;
Costs to be paid by the plaintiff.
"Pierre Blais"
Judge
Certified true translation
Mary Jo Egan, LLB
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 20020924
Docket: T-1125-02
Between:
FOLIOT INC.
Plaintiff
and
HEARTWOOD MANUFACTURING LTD.
and
MEDICINE HAT COLLEGE
Defendants
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DODKET: T-1125-02
STYLE OF CAUSE:
FOLIOT INC.
Plaintiff
and
HEARTWOOD MANUFACTURING LTD.
and
MEDICINE HAT COLLEGE
Defendants
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: September 23, 2002
REASONSFOR ORDER AND ORDER:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BLAIS
DATE OF REASONS: September 24, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Annie Breault FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Silvana Conte FOR THE DEFENDANTS
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Dufour, Mottet FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Laval,Quebec
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt FOR THE DEFENDANTS
Montréal, Quebec
Email this Content