[1] As certainly counsel before me well know, compliance with orders of our courts is the bedrock of respect for the rule of law. Failure to comply with court orders is sanctioned through contempt proceedings. Contempt proceedings are a most serious matter, reflecting the need to protect the rule of law. That is why contempt proceedings are analogous to criminal proceedings.
[2] Two preliminary matters are now at issue as we commence this contempt proceeding. The first is Mr. Anissimoff's request to be removed as counsel of record for Hart Robinson Breweries Limited. The second is a concern which the Court raised on its own motion, as to whether Rule 467(1)(b) has been complied with due to the failure of the show cause order that gave rise to this proceeding to describe with sufficient particularity the nature of the case alleged against Mr. Hart, Mr. Robinson and Hart Robinson Breweries.
[3] While before me Mr. Anissimoff very fairly conceded a "detailed papering of the case", as counsel made their oral submissions it appeared that dispute does exist as to whether the plaintiff asserts contempt arising out of a failure to comply with paragraph 5 of the original judgment of Mr. Justice O'Keefe which founds this contempt proceeding.
[4] I am not prepared to proceed with a proceeding of this gravity in the face of that uncertainty. It is paramount that individuals and the corporation that face such a serious matter know with precision the case that they have to meet.
[5] As well, Mr. Anissimoff, as an officer of the Court, has advised that he has been unable to get instructions from Hart Robinson Breweries. I am not prepared to go beyond or behind that statement of fact made by an officer of the Court. I accept his representation fully.
[6] It follows that he should be removed as solicitor for Hart Robinson Breweries. However, Rule 125(4) requires that an Order removing counsel only becomes effective on the filing of proof of service of the Order on the party formerly represented.
[7] It was argued before me that I might dispense with that requirement. However, I am not prepared to dispense with that requirement and to have the matter proceed with the corporation unrepresented at a contempt hearing without prior notice to the corporation of that fact.
[8] I will, for those reasons, adjourn the hearing to September 14th, commencing at 9:30 in Toronto. As for the terms of the adjournment, the plaintiff is required and directed to deliver and to serve on counsel for Mr. Hart and Mr. Robinson a written statement of each and every particular of each and every act alleged to be in contempt of court within 14 days of today's date. The written statement is to be personally served as soon as practicable thereafter on Mr. Hart, Mr. Robinson and Hart Robinson Breweries Ltd.
[9] Mr. Anissimoff is removed as solicitor of record for Hart Robinson Breweries to be effective the date of filing of proof of service of the order on Hart Robinson Breweries.
[10] The costs of today's appearance are reserved to the hearing in September.
"Eleanor R. Dawson"
J.F.C.C.
Toronto, Ontario
June 22, 2001
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: T-1656-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: DESNOES & GEDDES LIMITED
- and -
HART BREWERIES LIMITED
DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20, 2001
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: DAWSON J.
DATED: FRIDAY, JUNE 22, 2001
APPEARANCES: Mr. R. Adam Bobker
For the Plaintiff
Mr. Serge Anissimoff
For the Defendant
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Bereskin & Parr
Barristers & Solicitors
Box 401, Scotia Plaza
40 King Street West
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 3Y2
For the Plaintiff
Anissimoff & Associates
235 North Centre Road
Suite 201
London, Ontario
N5X 4E7
For the Defendant
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20010622
Docket: T-1656-00
BETWEEN:
DESNOES & GEDDES LIMITED
Plaintiff
- and -
HART BREWERIES LIMITED
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
Email this Content