Date: 20030722
Docket: T-244-03
Citation: 2003 FC 908
Montreal, Quebec, July 22, 2003
Present: RICHARD MORNEAU, ESQ., PROTHONOTARY
BETWEEN:
Dans l'affaire du Code canadien du travail, L.R.C. (1985),
ch. L-2, tel que modifié;
Et dans l'affaire d'un ordre de paiement émis le 31 octobre 2002
à 9051-4688 Québec Inc. (Transport Quélourdbec),
4700, rue Hickmore, Ville St-Laurent (Québec) H4T 1K2,
en vertu du paragraphe 251.1(1) du Code canadien du travail,
L.R.C. (1985), ch. L-2, tel que modifié
et concernant monsieur Michael Yassa;
Et dans l'affaire du dépôt à la Cour fédérale dudit
ordre de paiement en vertu du paragraphe 251.15(1)
du Code canadien du travail
Motion on behalf of the opposing party, A.R.P, Imperial Auto Inc., requesting leave to be represented by its president and principal shareholder, Aurelio Robert Parravano.
[Rules 120 and 369 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998]
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The Court has before it a written motion by the president of the opposing party to be authorized to represent the opposing party under Rule 120 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998.
[2] That rule reads as follows:
|
120. A corporation, partnership or unincorporated association shall be represented by a solicitor in all proceedings, unless the Court in special circumstances grants leave to it to be represented by an officer, partner or member, as the case may be.
|
120. Une personne morale, une société de personnes ou une association sans personnalité morale se fait représenter par un avocat dans toute instance, à moins que la Cour, à cause de circonstances particulières, ne l'autorise à se faire représenter par un de ses dirigeants, associés ou membres, selon le cas.
|
[3] Definite evidence must be submitted by an opposing party in connection with such a motion. In S.A.R. Group Relocation Inc. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2002), 289 N.R. 163, at 164, the Federal Court of Appeal noted the following:
For the court to make such an order in these circumstances it must be satisfied that the corporations are truly unable to pay for a lawyer and that the person sought to be allowed to represent them has indeed been authorized by the corporations to represent them. (Source Sercices Corp. v. Source Personal Inc. (1995), 105 F.T.R. 42 (T.D.); NsC Diesel Power Inc. (Bankrupt), Re (1995), 96 F.T.R. 161 (T.D.)). There is no clear evidence here on either point. Further, it is relevant to consider whether the proposed representative would also be a witness, as counsel cannot appear in cases where they are witnesses. (See Kobetek Systems Ltd. v. Canada, [1998] F.T.R. Uned. 9; [1998] 1 C.T.C. 308).
(My emphasis.)
[4] The evidence presented in the case at bar is far from meeting these evidentiary requirements. All that Mr. Parravano says in his affidavit, through short allegations, is that he is the president and principal shareholder of the opposing party and that the latter does not have the financial resources to retain counsel for the opposition. Mr. Parravano also adds that he can easily establish that the effects seized were always and still are the property of A.R.P. Imperial Auto Inc.
[5] That does not in any way meet the evidentiary requirements cited earlier. As a matter of fact the allegation by Mr. Parravano that he can easily establish relevant facts could be considered as an indication that he might turn out to be a central witness in the affidavit evidence that would need to be produced. Accordingly the motion at bar is dismissed without costs.
Richard Morneau
Prothonotary
FEDERAL COURT
Date : 20030722
Docket : T-244-03
Dans l'affaire du Code canadien du travail, L.R.C. (1985), ch. L-2, tel que modifié;
Et dans l'affaire d'un ordre de paiement émis le 31 octobre 2002 à 9051-4688 Québec Inc. (Transport Quélourdbec), 4700, rue Hickmore, Ville St-Laurent (Québec) H4T 1K2, en vertu du paragraphe 251.1(1) du Code canadien du travail, L.R.C. (1985), ch. L-2, tel que modifiéet concernant monsieur Michael Yassa;
Et dans l'affaire du dépôt à la Cour fédérale dudit ordre de paiement en vertu du paragraphe 251.15(1) du Code canadien du travail
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
FEDERAL COURT
COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET:
STYLE OF CAUSE:
T-244-03
Dans l'affaire du Code canadien du travail, L.R.C. (1985), ch. L-2, tel que modifié;
Et dans l'affaire d'un ordre de paiement émis le 31 octobre 2002 à 9051-4688 Québec Inc. (Transport Quélourdbec), 4700, rue Hickmore, Ville St-Laurent (Québec) H4T 1K2, en vertu du paragraphe 251.1(1) du Code canadien du travail, L.R.C. (1985), ch. L-2, tel que modifié et concernant monsieur Michael Yassa;
Et dans l'affaire du dépôt à la Cour fédérale dudit ordre de paiement en vertu du paragraphe 251.15(1) du Code canadien du travail
WRITTEN MOTION EXAMINED IN MONTREAL WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER OF:Richard Morneau, Esq., Prothonotary
DATED:July 22, 2003
WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS BY:
| Mr. Aurelio Robert Parravano
|
|
as President of the opposing party, A.R.P. Imperial Auto Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
| Mr. Arnold Lechter
Montreal, Quebec
|
|
for the opposing party, A.R.P. Imperial Auto Inc.
|
Email this Content