Fieldturf (IP) Inc. v. Installations Sportives Defargo Inc.
Court headnote
Fieldturf (IP) Inc. v. Installations Sportives Defargo Inc. Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2005-04-27 Neutral citation 2005 FC 577 File numbers T-375-05 Decision Content Date: 20050427 Docket: T-375-05 Citation: 2005 FC 577 Montréal, Quebec, the 27th day of April 2005 Present: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY BETWEEN: FIELDTURF (IP) INC. Plaintiff (Respondent) and LES INSTALLATIONS SPORTIVES DEFARGO INC. Defendant (Moving party) Motion by the defendant to dismiss the action or stay the proceeding, or alternatively for an extension of time. [Rules 8, 105 and 221 of the Federal Courts Rules] REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER [1] It appeared from the Fieldturf reply record that the technical characteristics of the three lots covered by the action in the case at bar differ from those mentioned in the action in docket T-491-04. Accordingly, this action cannot be struck out or stayed on account of the existence of docket T-491-04. If in future Defargo's declaratory action is further advanced and the technical differences between the three lots in this case diminish, the solution recommended in paragraph 21 of my order in docket T-491-04, dated October 19, 2004, may be considered. It is also conceivable that in future one or more cases may be consolidated pursuant to Rule 105 of the Federal Courts Rules. [2] This motion by the defendant is therefore dismissed: costs in the cause. However, the defendant will have until May 27, 2005, to serve and file its defence. "Richard Mor…
Read full judgment
Fieldturf (IP) Inc. v. Installations Sportives Defargo Inc. Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2005-04-27 Neutral citation 2005 FC 577 File numbers T-375-05 Decision Content Date: 20050427 Docket: T-375-05 Citation: 2005 FC 577 Montréal, Quebec, the 27th day of April 2005 Present: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY BETWEEN: FIELDTURF (IP) INC. Plaintiff (Respondent) and LES INSTALLATIONS SPORTIVES DEFARGO INC. Defendant (Moving party) Motion by the defendant to dismiss the action or stay the proceeding, or alternatively for an extension of time. [Rules 8, 105 and 221 of the Federal Courts Rules] REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER [1] It appeared from the Fieldturf reply record that the technical characteristics of the three lots covered by the action in the case at bar differ from those mentioned in the action in docket T-491-04. Accordingly, this action cannot be struck out or stayed on account of the existence of docket T-491-04. If in future Defargo's declaratory action is further advanced and the technical differences between the three lots in this case diminish, the solution recommended in paragraph 21 of my order in docket T-491-04, dated October 19, 2004, may be considered. It is also conceivable that in future one or more cases may be consolidated pursuant to Rule 105 of the Federal Courts Rules. [2] This motion by the defendant is therefore dismissed: costs in the cause. However, the defendant will have until May 27, 2005, to serve and file its defence. "Richard Morneau" Prothonotary Certified true translation K. Harvey FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-375-05 STYLE OF CAUSE: FIELDTURF (IP) INC. Plaintiff (Respondent) and LES INSTALLATIONS SPORTIVES DEFARGO INC. Defendant (Moving party) PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: April 25, 2005 REASONS FOR ORDER BY: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY DATED: April 27, 2005 APPEARANCES: François Demers FOR THE PLAINTIFF (RESPONDENT) Pascal Lauzon FOR THE DEFENDANT (APPLICANT) SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Spiegel, Sohmer FOR THE PLAINTIFF (RESPONDENT) Montréal, Quebec BCF S.E.N.C.R.L. FOR THE DEFENDANT (APPLICANT) Montréal, Quebec
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca