Canadian Association of Broadcasters v. Canada

Canadian Association of Broadcasters v. Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2005-09-02
Neutral citation
2005 FC 1200
File numbers
T-2277-03, T-276-04
Decision Content
Date: 20050902
Docket: T-2277-03
Citation: 2005 FC 1200
BETWEEN:
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS (The Plaintiff Association), GROUPE TVA INC., CTV TELEVISION INC., THE SPORTS NETWORK INC., 2953285 CANADA INC. (o.b.a. Discovery Channel Canada), LE RÉSEAU DES SPORTS (RDS) INC., THE COMEDY NETWORK INC., 1163031 ONTARIO INC. (o.b.a. Outdoor Life Network), GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED, GLOBAL TELEVISION NETWORK QUEBEC LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PRIME TV, GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, CHUM LIMITED, CHUM OTTAWA INC., CHUM TELEVISION VANCOUVER INC. and PULSE24 GENERAL PARTNERSHIP (The Corporate Plaintiffs)
Plaintiffs
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
Docket: T-276-04
BETWEEN:
VIDÉOTRON LTÉE, VIDÉOTRON (RÉGIONAL) LTÉE, and CF CABLE TV INC.
Plaintiffs
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario on September 1, 2005)
HUGESSEN J.
[1] I am going to dismiss this appeal from the Order of the case management Prothonotary directing a decision on two questions of law pursuant to Rule 220.
[2] There is no dispute between the parties that the matter before the Prothonotary was a discretionary matter and one in which she had a wide discretion to exercise.
[3] There is no question in my mind that the Prothonotary carefully considered and carefully applied the relevant jurisprudence in particular the leading decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in the Perera[1] case. That being so, in my view, and following the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Aqua-Gem[2] there is no basis upon which I could or should interfere with her Order.[3]
[4] It was a matter of discretion. She made no apparent error in the application of the relevant case law and the matter was not one which was vital to the final determination of the case. All she did was make a procedural Order as to how a question which admittedly might be vital to the final determination of the case should be dealt with but the Order which she rendered was not itself vital in that sense.
[5] The appeal will accordingly be dismissed with costs to be assessed.
"James K. Hugessen"
JUDGE
Ottawa, Ontario
September 2, 2005
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-2277-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS et al v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- AND -
T-276-04
VIDÉOTRON LTÉE et al v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING: OTTAWA, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: SEPTEMBER 1, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER: HUGESSEN J.
DATED: SEPTEMBER 2, 2005
APPEARANCES:
BARBARA A. McISAAC, Q.C.
HOWARD FOHR FOR PLAINTIFFS (Canadian Association of Broadcasters et al, in T-2277-03)
DANIEL URBAS CARL J. SOUQUET FOR PLAINTIFFS (Vidéotron Ltée et al, in T-276-04)
F.B. (RICK) WOYIWADA
R. JEFF ANDERSON FOR DEFENDANT (in T-2277-03)
FRANCISCO COUTO FOR DEFENDANT (in T-276-04)
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
McCARTHY TÉTRAULT
OTTAWA, ONTARIO FOR PLAINTIFFS (Canadian Association of Broadcasters et al, in T-2277-03)
BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS srl/LLP
MONTREAL, QUEBEC FOR PLAINTIFFS
(Vidéotron Ltée et al, in T-276-04)
JOHN H. SIMS, Q.C.
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
OTTAWA, ONTARIO FOR DEFENDANT (in T-2277-03)
JOHN H. SIMS, Q.C.
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
MONTREAL, QUEBEC FOR DEFENDANT (in T-276-04)
[1] Perera v. Canada [1998] 3 F.C. 381
[2] Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd. [1993] 2 F.C. 425
[3] I indicated during argument that the deference due a decision of a case management prothonotary is always due to the office and never to the particular circumstances of the person occupying it. Thus, I viewed as irrelevant the fact that the prothonotary here had only recently become involved in the management of this file.