Vennat v. Canada (Attorney General)
Source text
Vennat v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2006-03-16 Neutral citation 2006 FC 349 File numbers T-611-04 Decision Content Date: 20060316 Docket: T-611-04 Citation: 2006 FC 349 Ottawa, Ontario, March 16, 2006 PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HUGESSEN BETWEEN: MICHEL VENNAT Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER (Delivered from the bench by teleconference at Ottawa, Ontario and Montréal, Quebec on March 15, 2006) In response to the respondent’s motion for an order that applicant and affiant Michel Vennat answer the questions asked of him during the cross-examination on his affidavit held on January 14, 2006, and that he provide certain documents in his control; [1] In my opinion, the main issues raised in the motion are not relevant to this case. While it may be that the correctness of the Superior Court’s decision in proceedings to which the applicant was not a party is an issue to be considered by this court, the opinions of counsel, however eminent, are not relevant. The other issues raised are purely collateral to this dispute, such as the date on which the applicant found out that counsel of his former employer, the Development Bank of Canada, would not be relieved of solicitor-client privilege, and the costs incurred to defend the Bank before the Superior Court, and are also irrelevant. [2] The motion is dismissed. Costs in the cause. ORDER THE COURT ORDERS that: The motion be dismissed, …
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Vennat v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2006-03-16 Neutral citation 2006 FC 349 File numbers T-611-04 Decision Content Date: 20060316 Docket: T-611-04 Citation: 2006 FC 349 Ottawa, Ontario, March 16, 2006 PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HUGESSEN BETWEEN: MICHEL VENNAT Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER (Delivered from the bench by teleconference at Ottawa, Ontario and Montréal, Quebec on March 15, 2006) In response to the respondent’s motion for an order that applicant and affiant Michel Vennat answer the questions asked of him during the cross-examination on his affidavit held on January 14, 2006, and that he provide certain documents in his control; [1] In my opinion, the main issues raised in the motion are not relevant to this case. While it may be that the correctness of the Superior Court’s decision in proceedings to which the applicant was not a party is an issue to be considered by this court, the opinions of counsel, however eminent, are not relevant. The other issues raised are purely collateral to this dispute, such as the date on which the applicant found out that counsel of his former employer, the Development Bank of Canada, would not be relieved of solicitor-client privilege, and the costs incurred to defend the Bank before the Superior Court, and are also irrelevant. [2] The motion is dismissed. Costs in the cause. ORDER THE COURT ORDERS that: The motion be dismissed, costs in the cause. “James K. Hugessen” Judge Ottawa, Ontario Signed on March 16, 2006 Certified true translation Francie Gow FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-611-04 STYLE OF CAUSE: MICHEL VENNAT v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario and Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: March 15, 2006 REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER: Hugessen, J. DATED: March 16, 2006 APPEARANCES: LOUIS P. BÉLANGER FOR THE APPLICANT MARTINE L. TREMBLAY FOR THE RESPONDENT GEORGE J. POLLACK FOR THE INTERVENER SOLICITORS OF RECORD: STIKEMAN ELLIOTT MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC FOR THE APPLICANT KLUGER KANDESTIN LLP MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC FOR THE RESPONDENT DAVIES WARD PHILLIPS & VINEBERG LLP MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC FOR THE INTERVENER
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca
Quebec (Attorney General) v A
[2013] 1 SCR 61