Date: 20030925
Docket: T-860-02
Citation: 2003 FC 1103
Ottawa, Ontario, September 25, 2003
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BLAIS
BETWEEN:
COLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES, INC., DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC., METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS INC., PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION, TRISTAR PICTURES, INC., TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION, UNITED ARTISTS CORPORATION, UNITED ARTISTS PICTURES, INC., UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., WARNER BROS., a division of TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT CO., L.P.
Plaintiffs
and
CENTRE AUDIO VIDEO LANGLAIS, INC.,
9061-0171 QUEBEC INC. carrying on business as
CENTRE AUDIO VIDEO LANGLAIS, GILLES LANGLAIS,
JEAN-GUY LANGLAIS
Defendants
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is a motion in appeal from an order by the prothonotary Roza Aronovitch on July 24, 2003. The motion is asking the Court, alternatively, to give directions on whether the order prohibits or suspends the right to examine the plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 236 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998.
[2] In this case the prothonotary Roza Aronovitch acted as a case management judge.
[3] In accordance with the responsibilities conferred on her in that capacity, the prothonotary successively rendered two decisions, one on June 20, 2003, following a teleconferencing call. Finally, after the said teleconferencing call, the order made on June 20, 2003, and the exchange of correspondence on schedules proposed by either party, the prothonotary made an order on July 24, 2003, setting a schedule for the coming months.
[4] In this Court the parties indicated that they had both suggested to the prothonotary the possibility of an out-of-court examination of the parties, at different times and in connection with the various pleadings in the record.
[5] It appeared that the prothonotary did not specify in the schedule that the examination of the plaintiffs should be held at a particular time.
[6] Accordingly, the defendant asked the Court on this basis to set aside the prothonotary's decision and to issue directions so the examinations could be conducted before the appellants' motions are heard.
[7] The parties at the hearing informed the Court that a teleconferencing call presided over by the prothonotary Aronovitch would be held on October 1 next.
[8] Although the defendant wished to postpone hearing of the instant motion, counsel for the plaintiffs insisted on going forward on the date mentioned in the said motion, that is today.
[9] I have already informed the parties that the Court's decision would probably have little impact on the case, in view of the difficulties encountered by the parties in agreeing in the record and the significant efforts made by the prothonotary to induce the parties to arrange a reasonable schedule.
[10] Counsel for the defendants unfortunately did not submit a complete record which could be used to conduct a thorough examination of any grounds that might justify this Court's intervention, and in particular whether the prothonotary Aronovitch made an error in exercising her discretion when she issued her order dated July 24, 2003.
[11] Counsel for the plaintiffs properly noted that in Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425, MacGuigan J.A., for the Federal Court of Appeal, said:
I am of the opinion that such orders ought to be disturbed on appeal only where it has been made to appear that
(a) they are clearly wrong, in the sense that the exercise of discretion by the prothonotary was based upon a wrong principle or upon a misapprehension of the facts, or
(b) in making them, the prothonotary improperly exercised his discretion on a question vital to the final issue of the case.
In each of these classes of cases, the Motions Judge will not be bound by the opinion of the prothonotary; but will hear the matter de novo and exercise his or her own discretion.
[12] In my opinion, despite his efforts, counsel for the defendants did not succeed in persuading the Court that the prothonotary's order on July 24, 2003, was clearly wrong, in the sense that Ms. Aronovitch's exercise of discretion was based upon a wrong principle or upon a misapprehension of the facts, or that Ms. Aronovitch improperly exercised her discretion on a question vital to the final issue of the case.
[13] What is more, counsel for the defendants also did not persuade the Court that the said order deprived him of his right to proceed with the examinations of the plaintiffs. In this regard, the parties will have an opportunity to deal with this point at their teleconferencing call to be held on October 1 next.
ORDER
Consequently, this motion in appeal from the decision by the prothonotary Aronovitch on July 24, 2003, is dismissed with costs. This decision will also be entered in cases T-42-02 and T-78-02.
|
|
"Pierre Blais"
Judge
|
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
FILE: T-860-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: COLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES, INC. ET AL.
and
CENTRE AUDIO VIDEO LANGLAIS, INC. ET AL.
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: September 15, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER: Blais J.
DATE OF REASONS: September 25, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Daniel Ovadia FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
Louis Savoie FOR THE DEFENDANT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
OVADIA, SAUVAGEAU FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
Montréal, Quebec
JUTRAS ET ASSOCIÉS FOR THE DEFENDANT
Drummondville, Quebec
Email this Content