Fortier 2000 Ltée. v. Matiere
Court headnote
Fortier 2000 Ltée. v. Matiere Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2001-10-04 Neutral citation 2001 FCT 1092 File numbers T-611-01 Decision Content Date: 20011004 Docket: T-611-01 Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 1092 BETWEEN: FORTIER 2000 LTÉE Plaintiff/Applicant AND MARCEL MATIÈRE Defendant/Respondent AND MARCEL MATIÈRE BÉTON PROVINCIAL LTÉE Plaintiffs by counterclaim AND FORTIER 2000 LTÉE Defendant by counterclaim REASONS FOR ORDER NADON J. [1] The plaintiff's motion to overrule the decision of Prothonotary Richard Morneau of September 5, 2001 will be dismissed. [2] The Prothonotary refused to order that certain paragraphs in the defendant's statement of defence and counterclaim be struck out and he also refused to order the defendant to provide some particulars concerning its defence. [3] At the end of the hearing on October 1, 2001, I notified counsel that the motion would be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to persuade me that the prothonotary had erred in finding that the motions before him should be dismissed. [4] In my opinion, in light of the principles laid down by the Federal Court of Appeal in Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425, I can only conclude that the prothonotary's decision is not clearly wrong and that it is not addressed to any issues that are vital to the final issue of the case. [5] Even if I do not share the prothonotary's opinion concerning the striking out of certain paragraphs in the defendant's process…
Read full judgment
Fortier 2000 Ltée. v. Matiere Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2001-10-04 Neutral citation 2001 FCT 1092 File numbers T-611-01 Decision Content Date: 20011004 Docket: T-611-01 Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 1092 BETWEEN: FORTIER 2000 LTÉE Plaintiff/Applicant AND MARCEL MATIÈRE Defendant/Respondent AND MARCEL MATIÈRE BÉTON PROVINCIAL LTÉE Plaintiffs by counterclaim AND FORTIER 2000 LTÉE Defendant by counterclaim REASONS FOR ORDER NADON J. [1] The plaintiff's motion to overrule the decision of Prothonotary Richard Morneau of September 5, 2001 will be dismissed. [2] The Prothonotary refused to order that certain paragraphs in the defendant's statement of defence and counterclaim be struck out and he also refused to order the defendant to provide some particulars concerning its defence. [3] At the end of the hearing on October 1, 2001, I notified counsel that the motion would be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to persuade me that the prothonotary had erred in finding that the motions before him should be dismissed. [4] In my opinion, in light of the principles laid down by the Federal Court of Appeal in Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425, I can only conclude that the prothonotary's decision is not clearly wrong and that it is not addressed to any issues that are vital to the final issue of the case. [5] Even if I do not share the prothonotary's opinion concerning the striking out of certain paragraphs in the defendant's process, this is not sufficient to justify my intervention. [6] Accordingly, the appeal cannot be allowed. The defendant shall be entitled to its costs. [7] The plaintiff will have until October 15, 2001 to serve and file its reply and defence to counterclaim. Marc Nadon Judge Montréal, Quebec October 4, 2001 Certified true translation Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L., Trad. a. FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION Date: 20011004 Docket: T-611-01 Between: FORTIER 2000 LTÉE Plaintiff/Applicant AND MARCEL MATIÈRE Defendant/Respondent AND MARCEL MATIÈRE BÉTON PROVINCIAL LTÉE Plaintiffs by counterclaim AND FORTIER 2000 LTÉE Defendant by counterclaim REASONS FOR ORDER FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET NO: T-611-01 STYLE: FORTIER 2000 LTÉE Plaintiff/Applicant AND MARCEL MATIÈRE Defendant/Respondent AND MARCEL MATIÈRE BÉTON PROVINCIAL LTÉE Plaintiffs by counterclaim AND FORTIER 2000 LTÉE Defendant by counterclaim PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: October 1, 2001 REASONS FOR ORDER OF NADON J. DATED: October 4, 2001 APPEARANCES: Pierre Leroux FOR THE PLAINTIFF Florence Lucas FOR THE DEFENDANT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Brouillette Charpentier Fortin Montréal, Quebec FOR THE PLAINTIFF Gowling Lafleur Henderson Montréal, Quebec FOR THE DEFENDANT
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca