Date: 20011113
Docket: A-421-01
Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 346
CORAM: STONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP
Appellant
and
THE HOUSE OF KWONG SANG HONG
INTERNATIONAL LIMITED and
THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS
Respondents
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on November 13, 2001.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on November 13, 2001.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DÉCARY J.A.
Date: 20011113
Docket: A-421-01
Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 346
CORAM: STONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP
Appellant
and
THE HOUSE OF KWONG SANG HONG
INTERNATIONAL LIMITED and
THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario,
on November 13, 2001)
[1] This is an appeal from an unreported decision of a Motions Judge (T-583-01, July 10, 2001). The issue is whether, in an appeal to the Trial Division under section 56 of the Trade Marks Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13) of a decision of the Registrar made pursuant to section 45 (expungement for non-use), affidavits filed on the appeal by or on behalf of the registered owner are subject to cross-examination.
[2] This issue has been settled by this Court in Labatt's Ltd. v. Benson & Hedges (Canada) Ltd. (1983), 75 C.P.R. (2d) 287 (F.C.A.), where Mahoney J.A. held that the Trial Division had "the jurisdiction to require the deponent of an affidavit, filed in the court, to submit to cross-examination..." (at 263). The issue was put in terms of jurisdiction because, under the Federal Court Rules then in force, leave of the Court was required in order to cross-examine a deponent (Rule 704(6)). Under the Federal Court Rules, 1998, leave of the Court is no longer required (Rule 83). The practice has changed, but the principle set out by Mahoney J.A. remains. Rules of the Court could not, in any event, have changed a principle which is founded on the interpretation of the statute itself (see Rule 1).
[3] This same issue has been examined recently by Hansen J. in Sim & McBurney v. Microtel Ltd. (2000), 7 C.P.R. (4d) 260 (F.C.T.D.). We are in substantial agreement with the reasons for judgment therein.
[4] The appeal will be allowed, the decision of the Motions Judge dated July 10, 2001 will be set aside and the motion of the appellant for an Order directing Kong Chi Ming and Mung Ping Po to appear for cross-examination on their affidavits at a time and place to be agreed upon by counsel, or failing any such agreement at a time and place to be fixed by the Court, will be granted.
[5] The due date for completion of cross-examination under Rule 308 will be extended to December 4, 2001 and subsequent due dates in this proceeding, as prescribed by Rules 309, 310 and 314, will run from December 4, 2001, or the date upon which the cross-examinations are completed, whichever is the earlier.
[6] The appellant shall have its costs here and below.
"Robert Décary"
J.A.