Date: 19990720
Docket: T-996-96
Ottawa, Ontario, this 20th day of July, 1999
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PELLETIER
BETWEEN:
SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND
MUSIC PUBLISHERS OF CANADA
Plaintiff
- and -
T & C MOTOR HOTEL LTD.
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER and ORDER
[1] On March 25, 1999, this matter came before me for status review. I noted the submissions of counsel for the Plaintiff that the parties had, at one time, reached a settlement agreement that the Defendant subsequently breached. I also noted that a new settlement agreement had been reached and that Plaintiff"s counsel sought to file an Amended Statement of Claim, which reflected the terms of the settlement, while the claim was in status review. The practice of the Court is that, in general, no new steps should be taken while a file is in status review. Counsel asked to be allowed to make representations on his right to file the amended Statement of Claim if it was proposed to refuse to allow the filing of the document.
[2] Because the parties appeared to have worked out a settlement which was reflected in the Amended Statement of Claim, I allowed the Amended Statement of Claim to be filed, ordered that it be served with proof of service to be filed within 30 days of my order (given that the original Statement of Claim was not served until approximately 3 years after it was issued) and ordered the parties to "show cause why the Plaintiff should not be ordered to show entitlement to the judgment claimed." The latter requirement is taken from Rule 382(2(b ) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 which is intended to reduce to judgment those claims where no meritorious claim or defence exists. The show cause requirement was intended to allow the parties to tell the Court why proceeding to judgment would not be appropriate. For example, an undischarged judgment might impair the ability of the defendant to obtain credit.
[3] The file has now come forward and there is no evidence of compliance with any part of the order. While some may regard the order as an unwarranted interference in the affairs of the litigants, it remains an order of the Court. The price of non compliance is to have one"s claim or defence struck. The plaintiff is entitled to an opportunity for explanation. The plaintiff shall have 30 days within which to show cause why its claim should not be dismissed for non-compliance with an order of the Court. In the absence of a response, or if the explanation is unsatisfactory, the claim will be struck.
Judge