Urus Industrial Corp. v. Lifegear Inc., 2005 FCA 63

Date: 20050217

Docket: A-57-04

Citation: 2005 FCA 63

Toronto, Ontario, February 17^th, 2005

CORAM:        ROTHSTEIN J. A.

SEXTON J.A.

EVANS J. A.

BETWEEN:

                                             URUS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION

Appellant

                                                                           and

LIFEGEAR, INC. and

PRIDE INTERNATIONAL INC.

Respondents

Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on February 15, 2005.

Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, on February 15, 2005.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:                                            SEXTON J.A.

Date: 20050217

Docket: A-57-04

Citation: 2005 FCA 63

Toronto, Ontario, February 17^th , 2005

CORAM:        ROTHSTEIN J. A.

SEXTON J.A.

EVANS J. A.

BETWEEN:

                                             URUS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION

Appellant

                                                                           and

LIFEGEAR, INC. and

PRIDE INTERNATIONAL INC.

Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario on February 15^th, 2005)

SEXTON J.A.

[1]                We are unable to conclude that the Motions Judge erred in finding the Appellant in contempt by reason of knowingly contravening the Reasons and formal Judgment of Hugessen J. and imposing the fine of $ 10, 000 for contempt in this case. The Motions Judge considered the aggravating circumstances including the fact that the Appellant continued to advertise and sell product for a period of approximately 2 months after release of the Reasons for Judgment of Hugessen J. which clearly enjoined such activity. The Motions Judge further took into consideration the mitigating circumstances including the fact that once a formal order was issued, the Appellant complied reasonably promptly.

[2]                We see no error in principle in the reasons of the Motions Judge and no misapprehension of the facts and no obvious injustice, nor do we consider the fine imposed to be grossly excessive as argued by the Appellant. The appeal will be dismissed.

"J. E. Sexton"

                                                                                                                                                      J.A.                                

                                                  FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

                       NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                           A-57-04

STYLE OF CAUSE:               URUS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION

Appellant

and                               

LIFEGEAR, INC. and

                PRIDE INTERNATIONAL INC.

Respondents

PLACE OF HEARING:                     TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:                       FEBRUARY 15,2005

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

OF THE COURT:                               (ROTHSTEIN, SEXTON, EVANS JJ.A.)

DELIVERED FROM THE

BENCH BY:                                        SEXTON J.A.

APPEARANCES:

Brian D. Belmont                                   FOR APPELLANT

No One Appearing                                FOR RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:                                                                                              

Belmont ,Fine & Associates                   FOR APPELLANT                                         

Toronto, Ontario                      

No One Appearing                                FOR RESPONDENT