Canadian World Wide Film Festival v. Telefilm Canada

Canadian World Wide Film Festival v. Telefilm Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2005-04-05
Neutral citation
2005 FC 448
Decision Content
Date: 20050405
Docket: T-66-05
Citation: 2005 FC 448
Montréal, Quebec, April 5, 2005
Present: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
BETWEEN:
CANADIAN WORLD WIDE FILM FESTIVAL
Applicant
and
TELEFILM CANADA
Respondent
Motion in writing by the respondent to dismiss or, in the alternative, set aside the application for judicial review by the applicant, at the preliminary stage of the proceeding.
[Sections 56 to 59, paragraph 221(1)(a), and
sections 302, 303 and 369 of the Federal Courts Rules]
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] On January 14, 2005, the applicant filed an application for judicial review (the application by the applicant) of two decisions of the respondent: one concerning a call for proposals, dated September 7, 2004 (the Call for Proposals), and the second selecting one of the proposals, dated December 17, 2004 (the decision dated December 17, 2004).
[2] For the purposes of section 302 of the Federal Courts Rules (the Rules), I do not believe that the two decisions can be viewed as a continuous process or single order within the meaning of that Rule. Clearly, the application for judicial review of the Call for Proposals was filed outside of the period of thirty (30) days stipulated in subsection 18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. (1985), c. F-7, as amended (the Act). As a result, the application by the applicant will be suspended while the applicant seeks and obtains from a judge, where applicable, an extension of the period of thirty (30) days with respect to the Call for Proposals.
[3] The applicant’s legal interest in respect of the review of this Call for Proposals can then be considered in the context of the application for an extension of time.
[4] In respect of the review of the decision dated December 17, 2004, however, I cannot find here that the applicant does not have sufficient legal interest for the purposes of subsection 18.1(1) of the Act.
[5] Finally, I do not agree with the respondent that the injunction application contained in the application by the applicant is so vague and imprecise as to be unenforceable.
ORDER
THEREFORE, THE COURT ORDERS:
- That the application by the applicant be stayed while the applicant seeks and obtains from a judge, if appropriate, an extension of the time provided for under subsection 18.1(2) of the Act.
- That the motion by the respondent be dismissed in all other respects, with costs in the cause.
Richard Morneau
Prothonotary
Certified true translation
Michael Palles
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET:
STYLE OF CAUSE:
T-66-05
CANADIAN WORLD WIDE FILM FESTIVAL
Applicant
v.
TELEFILM CANADA
Respondent
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING AT MONTRÉAL WITHOUT THE APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
DATED: April 5, 2005
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:
Annick Bergeron
FOR THE APPLICANT
Chantal Sauriol
FOR THE RESPONDENT
Louis-Paul Cullen
LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Robinson Sheppard Shapiro
Montréal, Quebec
FOR THE APPLICANT
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE RESPONDENT
Ogilvy Renault
Montréal, Quebec
FOR THE RESPONDENT