Michaud v. Soprema Inc.

Michaud v. Soprema Inc.
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2001-12-13
Neutral citation
2001 FCT 1382
File numbers
T-458-97
Decision Content
Date: 20011213
Docket: T-458-97
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 1382
Montréal, Quebec, December 13, 2001
Before: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
BETWEEN:
ROBERT MICHAUD and
ADHÉSITECH INC.
Plaintiffs/
cross-defendants
and
SOPREMA INC.
Defendant/
cross-plaintiff
Motion by defendant for:
A. an order requiring the plaintiff Adhésitech Inc. ("Adhésitech") to provide security of $44,000 within 30 days of the date of this order for costs which may be awarded to the defendant;
B. an order staying proceedings until the security is paid within the deadline;
C. an order dismissing the plaintiffs' action in the case in the event the security is not paid within the deadline;
D. an order directing the plaintiffs to pay the costs of the instant motion;
E. any other order or remedy which this Honourable Court shall consider appropriate in the circumstances.
[Rule 416 of Federal Court Rules (1998)]
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This motion is dismissed with costs since there are two plaintiffs here and there is no evidence in the record that the plaintiff Michaud would try to avoid the payment of costs which might possibly in theory be awarded to the defendant on the merits. I think the following passage from Société Guy Laroche et al. v. 3081893 Canada Inc. et al., an unreported judgment of November 19, 1996, case T-1565-96, applies here (mutatis mutandis because of the fact that the plaintiffs' residence is not at issue here):
... the fact is that there is no evidence presently on file that these resident plaintiffs would seek to avoid or would not be able to meet an order of costs in relation to the action at bar should one be made in the future against all Plaintiffs (see Figgie International v. Schoettler (1994), 53 C.P.R. (3d) 450, at 459, and Titan Linkabit v. S.E.E. Electronic Engineering Inc. (1992), 42 C.P.R. (3d) 48, at 51).
[2] Further, it appears to me that the plaintiff Adhésitech Inc. has presented evidence of its impecuniosity and that the plaintiffs' case has sufficient merit at this stage for Rule 417 of the Federal Court Rules (1998) to apply in favour of the plaintiff Adhésitech Inc.
Richard Morneau
Prothonotary
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
Federal Court of Canada
Trial Division
Date: 20011213
Docket: T-458-97
Between:
ROBERT MICHAUD and
ADHÉSITECH INC.
Plaintiffs/
cross-defendants
and
SOPREMA INC.
Defendant/
cross-plaintiff
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
FILE:
STYLE OF CAUSE:
T-458-97
ROBERT MICHAUD and
ADHÉSITECH INC.
Plaintiffs/
cross-defendants
and
SOPREMA INC.
Defendant/
cross-plaintiff
PLACE OF HEARING:Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING:December 5, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
DATED:December 13, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Margaret Weltrowska
for the plaintiffs/cross-defendants
Anne-Marie Jutras
for the defendant/cross-plaintiff
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Fraser, Milner, Casgrain
Montréal, Quebec
for the plaintiffs/cross-defendants
Jutras et Associés
Drummondville, Quebec
for the defendant/cross-plaintiff