Date: 20000503
Docket: T-2080-98
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC, MAY 3, 2000
| BEFORE: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY |
Between:
VEUVE CLICQUOT PONSARDIN,
FOUNDED IN 1772
Plaintiff
AND
LES BOUTIQUES CLIQUOT LTÉE and
MADEMOISELLE CHARMANTE INC. and
3017320 CANADA INC.
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY:
[1] The case at bar concerns a motion pursuant to Rule 107 of the Federal Court Rules (1998) ("the Rules") asking the Court to order an adjournment of the examinations for discovery and the determination of questions of relief as long as the examinations for discovery and the hearing on the question of liability have not taken place.
Background
[2] This case concerns a second motion by the defendants under Rule 107, since on March 13, 2000 they had already made such a motion: that motion was dismissed by order on March 14, 2000.
[3] On March 24, therefore, the defendants served the instant motion, to which they attached a new affidavit by their counsel. This affidavit was originally intended to put forward the following grounds:
| [TRANSLATION] |
| 2. in view of the confidential nature of the information which the respondent is seeking to obtain by questions reference to which is made in the order of March 8, 2000, and in view of the great competitive disadvantage which the applicants would suffer if they were required to disclose this information prematurely, and perhaps needlessly, it is in the parties' interests and the interests of justice to separate the questions of liability and quantum, so that the question of quantum will not be decided until after this Honourable Court has found that the respondent is successful on the question of liability; |
| 3. in view of the exceptional nature of the respondent's application in the case at bar, and the cost and volume of effort required to decide the question of quantum, it is in the parties' interests and in the interests of justice to separate the questions of liability and quantum, so that the latter question will only be decided if this Honourable Court finds that the respondent is successful on the question of liability. |
[4] The second argument, that concerning cost and volume of effort, was discontinued by the defendants at the hearing in view of this Court's order of March 14, 2000.
[5] As to the first argument, the submissions of counsel for the defendants and the affidavit of their representative dated March 24, 2000 offer no information or new argument which was not known when the motion was heard on March 13, 2000.
[6] I therefore consider that the defendants' affidavit dated March 24, 2000, and thus the motion at bar, are inadmissible -- and are therefore dismissed with costs -- since under the rules of res judicata the Court clearly cannot allow a party to again submit a motion on the basis of the fact that additional arguments could produce a different result. Here the additional arguments could have been, and had to be, made to the Court on March 13, 2000. The case law cited by the defendant must therefore be distinguished in this regard.
[7] It equally clearly cannot be argued in the case at bar that there is no identity of case between the motion at bar and that of March 13 because the question of confidentiality was not argued on March 13. In all logic, the question of confidentiality should have been argued at that time. It thus seems to me that this is a tautological argument.
[8] Further, even if one were to find that the motion at bar was not inadmissible on a preliminary basis, I think it would still have to be dismissed on the merits. I consider that the fears of a breach of confidentiality and damage to the defendants' competitive position in the case at bar could easily be avoided by the establishment of a confidentiality agreement between counsel for the parties or by the obtaining of an order to that effect under Rules 151 and 152 of the Federal Court Rules (1988). It should be noted here that the parties are not in direct competition and that any possibility that they may one day be competitors was only raised indirectly on a hypothetical basis.
| Richard Morneau Prothonotary |
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
| Federal Court of Canada Trial Division Date: 20000503 Docket: T-2080-98 Between: VEUVE CLICQUOT PONSARDIN, FOUNDED IN 1772 Plaintiff AND LES BOUTIQUES CLIQUOT LTÉE and MADEMOISELLE CHARMANTE INC. and 3017320 CANADA INC. Defendant REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER |
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| COURT FILE No.: T-2080-98 |
STYLE OF CAUSE: VEUVE CLICQUOT PONSARDIN,
FOUNDED IN 1772
Plaintiff
AND
LES BOUTIQUES CLIQUOT LTÉE and
MADEMOISELLE CHARMANTE INC. and
3017320 CANADA INC.
Defendant
| PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec |
| DATE OF HEARING: May 1, 2000 |
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
| DATE OF REASONS FOR ORDER: May 3, 2000 |
APPEARANCES:
Martine Tremblay for the plaintiff
Brian Riordan for the defendants
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Léger, Robic, Richard for the plaintiff
Montréal, Quebec
Pouliot, Mercure for the defendants
Montréal, Quebec