Skip to main content
Federal Court of Appeal· 2005

Urus Industrial Corp. v. Lifegear Inc.

2005 FCA 63
GeneralJD
Cite or share
Share via WhatsAppEmail
Showing the official court-reporter headnote. An editorial brief (facts · issues · held · ratio · significance) is on the roadmap for this case. The judgment text below is the authoritative source.

Court headnote

Urus Industrial Corp. v. Lifegear Inc. Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2005-02-17 Neutral citation 2005 FCA 63 File numbers A-57-04 Decision Content Date: 20050217 Docket: A-57-04 Citation: 2005 FCA 63 Toronto, Ontario, February 17th, 2005 CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J. A. SEXTON J.A. EVANS J. A. BETWEEN: URUS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION Appellant and LIFEGEAR, INC. and PRIDE INTERNATIONAL INC. Respondents Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on February 15, 2005. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, on February 15, 2005. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SEXTON J.A. Date: 20050217 Docket: A-57-04 Citation: 2005 FCA 63 Toronto, Ontario, February 17th , 2005 CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J. A. SEXTON J.A. EVANS J. A. BETWEEN: URUS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION Appellant and LIFEGEAR, INC. and PRIDE INTERNATIONAL INC. Respondents REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario on February 15th, 2005) SEXTON J.A. [1] We are unable to conclude that the Motions Judge erred in finding the Appellant in contempt by reason of knowingly contravening the Reasons and formal Judgment of Hugessen J. and imposing the fine of $ 10, 000 for contempt in this case. The Motions Judge considered the aggravating circumstances including the fact that the Appellant continued to advertise and sell product for a period of approximately 2 months after release of the Reasons for Judgment of Hugessen J. which clearly enjoined such activity. The Motions Judge further took into con…

Read full judgment
Urus Industrial Corp. v. Lifegear Inc.
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2005-02-17
Neutral citation
2005 FCA 63
File numbers
A-57-04
Decision Content
Date: 20050217
Docket: A-57-04
Citation: 2005 FCA 63
Toronto, Ontario, February 17th, 2005
CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J. A.
SEXTON J.A.
EVANS J. A.
BETWEEN:
URUS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION
Appellant
and
LIFEGEAR, INC. and
PRIDE INTERNATIONAL INC.
Respondents
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on February 15, 2005.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, on February 15, 2005.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SEXTON J.A.
Date: 20050217
Docket: A-57-04
Citation: 2005 FCA 63
Toronto, Ontario, February 17th , 2005
CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J. A.
SEXTON J.A.
EVANS J. A.
BETWEEN:
URUS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION
Appellant
and
LIFEGEAR, INC. and
PRIDE INTERNATIONAL INC.
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario on February 15th, 2005)
SEXTON J.A.
[1] We are unable to conclude that the Motions Judge erred in finding the Appellant in contempt by reason of knowingly contravening the Reasons and formal Judgment of Hugessen J. and imposing the fine of $ 10, 000 for contempt in this case. The Motions Judge considered the aggravating circumstances including the fact that the Appellant continued to advertise and sell product for a period of approximately 2 months after release of the Reasons for Judgment of Hugessen J. which clearly enjoined such activity. The Motions Judge further took into consideration the mitigating circumstances including the fact that once a formal order was issued, the Appellant complied reasonably promptly.
[2] We see no error in principle in the reasons of the Motions Judge and no misapprehension of the facts and no obvious injustice, nor do we consider the fine imposed to be grossly excessive as argued by the Appellant. The appeal will be dismissed.
"J. E. Sexton"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-57-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: URUS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION
Appellant
and
LIFEGEAR, INC. and
PRIDE INTERNATIONAL INC.
Respondents
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 15,2005
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT: (ROTHSTEIN, SEXTON, EVANS JJ.A.)
DELIVERED FROM THE
BENCH BY: SEXTON J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Brian D. Belmont FOR APPELLANT
No One Appearing FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Belmont ,Fine & Associates FOR APPELLANT
Toronto, Ontario
No One Appearing FOR RESPONDENT

Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca

Related cases