Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20031003

Docket: T-1821-02

Citation: 2003 FC 1152

Montréal, Quebec, October 3, 2003

PRESENT: MR. RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY

BETWEEN:

KRAFT CANADA INC.

KRAFT FOODS SCHWEIZ AG

and

KRAFT FOODS BELGIUM SA

Applicants

and

EURO EXCELLENCE INC.

Respondent

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

[1]        The case at bar concerns a motion by the respondent under Rule 369 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, seeking essentially:

            1.         the issuing of an order authorizing this motion to be made in writing;


            2.         the issuing of an order authorizing the respondent to file a supplementary record including responses to undertakings signed by the representative of the co-applicant Kraft Canada Inc., Marilyn Miller, at her cross-examination on July 2, 2003;

            3.         an order amending paragraph 4 of the document titled "Requisition for Hearing" to allow five days of hearing, rather than the two initially agreed upon.

[2]        On the first point above, I have considered the parties' written submissions and I feel that I can dispose of the motion at bar without an oral hearing of the parties.

[3]        Since point 2 above was not challenged by the applicants, the respondent is authorized to serve and file the said supplementary record within five days of this order.

[4]        The remedy sought in point 3 above is denied.


[5]        The respondent submitted no evidence to indicate why it should not be limited by the parameters which it agreed to in its application for a hearing filed on July 8, 2003. It appeared that this application was fully discussed between counsel. The fact that it preceded the preparation of the respondent's record does not preclude the presumption, first, that the respondent and its counsel are presumed to be fully familiar with the points they intended to put forward on the merits, and second, that these matters were taken into account in assessing the length of the hearing. That period is already set down for two days, which is itself unusual for an application for judicial review.

[6]        Additionally, it is quite surprising that the respondent now wishes to arrange matters so it can challenge the constitutionality of paragraph 27(2)(e) of the Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42 ("the Act"). It appears that it is this addition which would essentially increase the length of the hearing on the merits, extending from two to five days.

[7]        As the applicants pointed out, the parties - and hence the respondent - clearly noted in their application for a hearing that no notice of a constitutional question was contemplated.

[8]        The respondent's motion record contains no evidence that will now justify this major reorientation. In fact, because of this absence of supporting evidence the Court cannot rule out the possibility that this argument about constitutionality was in the respondent's mind at the time the latter filed its motion record, which led to the decision of this Court on January 20, 2003. As mentioned earlier, the application for a hearing makes no reference to any constitutional question. It must therefore be presumed from the present standpoint that the respondent has decided in the meantime it did not want to take that route.


[9]        Finally, providing at this point that the hearing on the merits would be five rather than two days would of necessity appreciably delay the hearing on the merits, and would be contrary to the objective sought by subsection 34(4) of the Act, namely a summary approach.

[10]      For these reasons, the Court dismisses the respondent's request that the length of the hearing now be considered to be five days.

[11]      As to costs on the instant motion, although the respondent was successful on certain points those points were essentially minor ones. Consequently, costs on this motion are awarded to the applicants.

"Richard Morneau"

                           Prothonotary

Certified true translation

Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.


                          FEDERAL COURT

                                                           Date: 20031003

                                                      Docket: T-1821-02

Between:

KRAFT CANADA INC.

KRAFT FOODS SCHWEIZ AG

and

KRAFT FOODS BELGIUM SA

Applicants

and

EURO EXCELLENCE INC.

Respondent

                     REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER


                                                             FEDERAL COURT

                                                      SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                                          T-1821-02

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                                  KRAFT CANADA INC.

KRAFT FOODS SCHWEIZ AG and KRAFT FOODS BELGIUM SA

Applicants

and

EURO EXCELLENCE INC.

Respondent

WRITTEN MOTION CONSIDERED IN MONTRÉAL WITHOUT APPEARANCE BY PARTIES

REASONS FOR ORDER BY: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY

DATED:                                                                     October 3, 2003

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:

Arthur B. Renaud                                                         for the applicants

Timothy M. Lowman

François Boscher                                                         for the respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Sim, Hughes, Ashton & McKay                                   for the applicants

Toronto, Ontario

François Boscher                                                         for the respondent

Éric Franchi

Pierre-Emmanuel Moyse

Montréal, Quebec

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.