Forestville Hélicoptères v. Canada

Forestville Hélicoptères v. Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2003-02-14
Neutral citation
2003 FCT 171
File numbers
T-2021-02
Decision Content
Date: 20030214
Docket: T-2021-02
Neutral citation: 2003 FCT 171
Montréal, Quebec, February 14, 2003
Before: Richard Morneau, prothonotary
BETWEEN:
FORESTVILLE HÉLICOPTÈRES
Plaintiff
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
Motion by Guy Tremblay for an order allowing him to represent the plaintiff Forestville Hélicoptères.
[Rule 369 of the Federal Court Rules (1998)]
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The Court has before it a written motion by the plaintiff's president to be authorized to represent the plaintiff.
[2] Although the plaintiff's notice of motion does not say so, that motion must be considered under Rule 120 of the Federal Court Rules (1998). That rule reads as follows:
120. A corporation, partnership or unincorporated association shall be represented by a solicitor in all proceedings, unless the Court in special circumstances grants leave to it to be represented by an officer, partner or member, as the case may be.
120. Une personne morale, une société de personnes ou une association sans personnalité morale se fait représenter par un avocat dans toute instance, à moins que la Cour, à cause de circonstances particulières, ne l'autorise à se faire représenter par un de ses dirigeants, associés ou membres, selon le cas.
[3] Definite evidence must be submitted by a plaintiff in connection with such a motion. In S.A.R. Group Relocation Inc. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2002), 289 N.R. 163, at 164, the Federal Court of Appeal noted the following:
For the court to make such an order in these circumstances it must be satisfied that the corporations are truly unable to pay for a lawyer and that the person sought to be allowed to represent them has indeed been authorized by the corporations to represent them. (Source Services Corp. v. Source Personal Inc. (1995), 105 F.T.R. 42 (T.D.); NsC Diesel Power Inc. (Bankrupt), Re (1995), 96 F.T.R. 161 (T.D.)). There is no clear evidence here on either point. Further, it is relevant to consider whether the proposed representative would also be a witness, as counsel cannot appear in cases where they are witnesses. (See Kobetek Systems Ltd. v. Canada, [1998] F.T.R. Uned. 9; [1998] 1 C.T.C. 308).
(My emphasis.)
[4] The evidence presented in the case at bar is far from meeting these evidentiary requirements. All that Mr. Tremblay said in his affidavit, through short unsupported allegations, was that he was the plaintiff's president in the case at bar and that the latter was unable to pay a lawyer. That does not in any way meet the evidentiary requirement and the motion at bar is accordingly dismissed without costs.
"Richard Morneau"
Prothonotary
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 20030214
Docket: T-2021-02
Between:
FORESTVILLE HÉLICOPTÈRES
Plaintiff
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
FILE: T-2021-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: FORESTVILLE HÉLICOPTÈRES
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
WRITTEN MOTION CONSIDERED IN MONTRÉAL WITHOUT APPEARANCE BY PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
DATED: February 14, 2003
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
Guy Tremblay for the plaintiff
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Veillette et Associés for the defendant
Sainte-Foy, Quebec