Date: 20041118
Docket: T-519-04
Citation: 2004 FC 1614
Ottawa, Ontario, this 18th day of November, 2004
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN A. O'KEEFE
BETWEEN:
BELARUS TRACTOR OF CANADA
Plaintiff
and
ADVANTAGE TRADE GROUP INC., ANDREW SNUR, ANDREY SNURNITSIN,
ANDREY SEMENOV, SEMEN SERGEEV and JANE DOE AND JOHN JOE and
OTHER PERSONS, NAMES UNKNOWN, WHO OFFER FOR SALE, SELL, IMPORT, MANUFACTURE, PRINT, DISTRIBUTE, ADVERTISE, PROMOTE, SHIP, STORE,
DISPLAY OR OTHERWISE DEAL IN UNAUTHORIZED OR COUNTERFEIT
BELARUS PRODUCTS
Defendants
AND BETWEEN:
ADVANTAGE TRADE GROUP INC. and ANDREY SNURNITSIN
Plaintiffs by Counterclaim
- and -
BELARUS TRACTOR OF CANADA
Defendant by Counterclaim
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
O'KEEFE J.
[1] This is a motion by the defendants pursuant to Rules 369 and 397 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 for:
1. An Order authorizing Mr. Andrey Snurnitsin to act on behalf of the defendant Incorporation Advantage Trade Group Inc. and be a witness and acting in role of council [sic].
2. In the alternative, an Order authorizing Mr. Andrey Snurnitsin to act on behalf of the Defendant Incorporation Advantage Trade Group Inc.
3. Such further and other relief this Honourable Court considers just.
4. An Order to reconsider the Order of the Honourable Mr. Justice O'Keefe dated June 30, 2004.
[2] Rule 369 concerns motions in writing such as the present motion. Rule 397 deals with motions to reconsider the terms of an order and reads as follows:
|
397. (1) Within 10 days after the making of an order, or within such other time as the Court may allow, a party may serve and file a notice of motion to request that the Court, as constituted at the time the order was made, reconsider its terms on the ground that
(a) the order does not accord with any reasons given for it; or
|
397. (1) Dans les 10 jours après qu'une ordonnance a été rendue ou dans tout autre délai accordé par la Cour, une partie peut signifier et déposer un avis de requête demandant à la Cour qui a rendu l'ordonnance, telle qu'elle était constituée à ce moment, d'en examiner de nouveau les termes, mais seulement pour l'une ou l'autre des raisons suivantes:
a) l'ordonnance ne concorde pas avec les motifs qui, le cas échéant, ont été donnés pour la justifier;
|
|
(b) a matter that should have been dealt with has been overlooked or accidentally omitted.
(2) Clerical mistakes, errors or omissions in an order may at any time be corrected by the Court.
|
b) une question qui aurait dû être traitée a été oubliée ou omise involontairement.
(2) Les fautes de transcription, les erreurs et les omissions contenues dans les ordonnances peuvent être corrigées à tout moment par la Cour.
|
[3] As can be seen from a reading of Rule 397, I can only reconsider my earlier decision on the following grounds: the order does not accord with the reasons given for it or a matter that should have been dealt with was overlooked or accidentally omitted. In addition, I can correct clerical mistakes, errors or omissions in the order at any time.
[4] The jurisprudence of this Court makes it clear that a reconsideration is not an appeal of the earlier decision nor is it an opportunity to introduce new evidence (see Martin v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1999), 162 F.T.R. 127 (T.D) and Dan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000), 4 Imm. L.R. (3d) 252 (Prothonotary Hargrave)).
[5] I have reviewed the material filed by the parties and I cannot find any reference to anything I overlooked or accidentally omitted nor can I find a reference to any clerical mistakes, errors or omissions in the order.
[6] I have also reviewed my order for any of these factors so as to give me reason to reconsider my order. I can find none.
[7] In addition, in my earlier decision, I dealt with and decided that Mr. Andrey Snurnitsin could not act on behalf of the defendant corporation, Advantage Trade Group Inc. I cannot sit in appeal of my own earlier decision that Andrey Snurnitsin could not act on behalf of the corporation. I can only reconsider that decision based on the grounds stated in Rule 397, none of which are present in the present case.
[8] The defendants' motion for reconsideration is therefore dismissed.
ORDER
[9] IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The defendants' motion for reconsideration is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff shall have its costs of the motion.
"John A. O'Keefe"
J.F.C.
Ottawa, Ontario
November 18, 2004
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-519-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: BELARUS TRACTOR OF CANADA
- and -
ADVANTAGE TRADE GROUP INC. ET AL
AND BETWEEN:
ADVANTAGE TRADE GROUP INC. And
ANDREY SNURNITSIN
- and -
BELARUS TRACTOR OF CANADA
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT THE APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER OF O'KEEFE J.
DATED: November 18, 2004
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Peter F. Kappel
FOR PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT BY COUNTERCLAIM
Andrey Snurnitsin
Self Represented
FOR DEFENDANTS
PLAINTIFFS BY COUNTERCLAIM
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Kappel Ludlow LLP
Toronto, Ontario
FOR PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT BY COUNTERCLAIM
Andrey Snurnitsin
Toronto, Ontario
FOR DEFENDANTS
PLAINTIFFS BY COUNTERCLAIM
Email this Content