Date: 19990806
Docket: T-242-98
BETWEEN:
BORGFELDT (CANADA) LIMITED
Plaintiff
- and -
DISTRIBUTION AUX MODELISTES INC.
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
GILES A.S.P.:
| [1] Notice of status review of this proceeding was sent out on or about May 27, 1999. |
| [2] On June 18, 1999 the plaintiff served and filed written submissions in response to the notice of status review and filed a motion for default judgment, ex parte. |
| [3] After waiting for more than three weeks to allow the defendant to respond, I dealt with the status review by ordering that these proceedings continue as a specially managed proceeding, and by postponing the disposition of the motion for judgment in default of defence until August 4, 1999. |
| [4] On August 4, 1999 the file was brought back to me together with representations with respect to the status review which had been delivered to the Registry in Montreal. In the body of these representations it is apparent they were also with respect to my order of July 14, 1999. That is to say, representations with regard to the status review were written after my order disposing of the status review had been made. |
| [5] In the body of the representations, the Administrator of the Court is advised of the defendant"s intention to seek permission to file a defence. The Registry sought directions as to what to do with this pile of paper tendered, and I order it filed so that it may be commented upon. |
| [6] The representations with respect to status review were tendered more than six weeks after the plaintiff"s submissions, and about ten weeks after the status review notice was sent. More importantly, they were tendered three weeks after the status review had been concluded. |
| [7] As representations for the status review, they are too late. The intended effect on my order is not stated, but if reconsideration or appeal is sought, a proper motion for that purpose should have been made. Similarly, a motion rather than advising the Administrator of the intention to seek leave would be necessary if it was intended to move the Court for that purpose. |
| [8] This proceeding must keep moving ahead. It has already stagnated too long. I would have been inclined to give the defendant two weeks from today to move, in writing, for leave to file a defence or to move for reconsideration or to appeal my order of July 14, 1999. However, the plaintiff has suggested as an alternative to immediate default judgment that one month be allowed. |
ORDER
| 1. The motion for judgment in default of defence is adjourned to September 7, 1999. |
| 2. The defendant, thus, has a month from today to move in writing for leave to file a defence, or to move for reconsideration of my order of July 14, 1999, or to appeal my order of July 14, 1999. |
| 3. On September 7, 1999 should no steps have been taken by the defendant, judgment in default of defence will be granted without further representations. |
"Peter A.K. Giles"
A.S.P.
TORONTO, ONTARIO
August 6, 1999
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| COURT NO: T-242-98 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: BORGFELDT (CANADA) LIMITED |
| - and - |
| DISTRIBUTION AUX MODELISTES INC. |
CONSIDERED AT TORONTO, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULES 369
| REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: GILES A.S.P. |
DATED: FRIDAY, AUGUST 6, 1999
| WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: Mr. David J. Greer |
For the Plaintiff
Mr. Paul-André Mathieu
For the Defendant
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Barrigar & Moss |
Barristers & Solicitors
Two Robert Speck Parkway
Mississauga, Ontario
L4Z 1H8
| For the Plaintiff |
| Mathieu & Associés |
Barristers & Solicitors
5515, chemin de la côte St-Luc
Montreal, Quebec
H3X 2C6
| For the Defendant |
| FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA |
Date: 19990806
Docket: T-242-98
Between:
| BORGFELDT (CANADA) LIMITED |
Plaintiff
| - and - |
| DISTRIBUTION AUX MODELISTES INC. |
Defendant
| REASONS FOR ORDER |
| AND ORDER |