Fortier 2000 Ltée. v. Matiere
Court headnote
Fortier 2000 Ltée. v. Matiere Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2003-03-26 Neutral citation 2003 FCT 351 File numbers T-611-01 Decision Content Date: 20030326 Docket: T-611-01 Citation: 2003 FCT 351 Montréal, Quebec, March 26, 2003 Present: Richard Morneau, Prothonotary BETWEEN: FORTIER 2000 LTÉE Plaintiff and MARCEL MATIÈRE Defendant and MARCEL MATIÈRE and BÉTON PROVINCIAL LTÉE Plaintiffs by counterclaim and FORTIER 2000 LTÉE Defendant to counterclaim REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY: [1] It appears to me in the circumstances of this case that this motion by the defendant and plaintiffs by counterclaim (the defendant) for further and better particulars regarding paragraph 22 of the plaintiff's amended reply and defence to the counterclaim must be dismissed, with costs. [2] Although the order of January 22, 2003, provided that the defendant could appeal by motion to obtain further and better particulars regarding paragraph 22, the text of paragraph 22 together with the additional particulars provided by the plaintiff on February 20, 2003, should have led the defendant to justify by way of affidavit both the need for additional particulars and the harm caused by this alleged lack of particulars. Each case turns on its own facts in this area of law, and unlike this Court's decision of February 27, 2001, in Contour Optik Inc. v. Hakim Optical Laboratory Ltd. (2001 FCT 125), I do not believe that there is a basic deficiency in these pleading…
Read full judgment
Fortier 2000 Ltée. v. Matiere Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2003-03-26 Neutral citation 2003 FCT 351 File numbers T-611-01 Decision Content Date: 20030326 Docket: T-611-01 Citation: 2003 FCT 351 Montréal, Quebec, March 26, 2003 Present: Richard Morneau, Prothonotary BETWEEN: FORTIER 2000 LTÉE Plaintiff and MARCEL MATIÈRE Defendant and MARCEL MATIÈRE and BÉTON PROVINCIAL LTÉE Plaintiffs by counterclaim and FORTIER 2000 LTÉE Defendant to counterclaim REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY: [1] It appears to me in the circumstances of this case that this motion by the defendant and plaintiffs by counterclaim (the defendant) for further and better particulars regarding paragraph 22 of the plaintiff's amended reply and defence to the counterclaim must be dismissed, with costs. [2] Although the order of January 22, 2003, provided that the defendant could appeal by motion to obtain further and better particulars regarding paragraph 22, the text of paragraph 22 together with the additional particulars provided by the plaintiff on February 20, 2003, should have led the defendant to justify by way of affidavit both the need for additional particulars and the harm caused by this alleged lack of particulars. Each case turns on its own facts in this area of law, and unlike this Court's decision of February 27, 2001, in Contour Optik Inc. v. Hakim Optical Laboratory Ltd. (2001 FCT 125), I do not believe that there is a basic deficiency in these pleadings that warrants further and better particulars. [3] Along the same lines, I do not believe it is necessary for the plaintiff to amend its affidavit of documents. [4] This case must move forward and must not become mired in classic difficulties connected to the examinations on discovery. The parties shall govern themselves in accordance with the timetable approved by the Court in a separate order dated today. Richard Morneau Prothonotary Certified true translation Mary Jo Egan, LLB FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION Date: 20030326 Docket: T-611-01 Between: FORTIER 2000 LTÉE Plaintiff and MARCEL MATIÈRE Defendant and MARCEL MATIÈRE and BÉTON PROVINCIAL LTÉE Plaintiffs by counterclaim and FORTIER 2000 LTÉE Defendant to counterclaim REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: STYLE OF CAUSE: T-611-01 FORTIER 2000 LTÉE Plaintiff and MARCEL MATIÈRE Defendant and MARCEL MATIÈRE and BÉTON PROVINCIAL LTÉE Plaintiffs by counterclaim and FORTIER 2000 LTÉE Defendant to counterclaim PLACE OF HEARING:Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: March 24, 2003 REASONS FOR ORDER OF RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY DATED:March 26, 2003 APPEARANCES : Pascal Lauzon for the plaintiff and defendant to counterclaim Katherine Stachrowski for the defendant and plaintiffs by counterclaim SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Brouillette Charpentier Fortin Montréal, Quebec for the plaintiff and defendant to counterclaim Gowling Lafleur Henderson Montréal, Quebec for the defendant and plaintiffs by counterclaim
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca