9051-4688 Québec Inc., Re

9051-4688 Québec Inc., Re

The motion was dismissed because the affidavit evidence failed to establish the corporation's inability to pay and did not demonstrate that Parravano was authorized to act; further, the affidavit suggested Parravano might be a central witness, which militates against granting leave under Rule 120 in light of binding authorities.

Citation
2003 FC 908
Parties
Payee / Applicant: 9051-4688 Québec Inc. (Transport Quélourdbec); Opposing Party / Applicant for Leave to Self Represent: A.R.P. Imperial Auto Inc.; Proposed Representative (president and Principal Shareholder of A.r.p. Imperial Auto Inc.): Aurelio Robert Parravano; Named Individual / Claimant: Michael Yassa
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Motion for Leave to Permit Corporate Self Representation Under Federal Court Rules, 1998, Rule 120 / Written Motion Heard Without Personal Appearance (decision on Leave to Represent)
Outcome
Motion dismissed without costs.
Legal Topics
Corporate Representation, Self Representation by Corporate Officer, Evidentiary Requirements for Leave Under Rule 120, Witness‑counsel Conflict
Source Language
English
Labour Law Civil Procedure Federal Court Practice Corporate Representation Self Representation by Corporate Officer Evidentiary Requirements for Leave Under Rule 120 Witness‑counsel Conflict

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

9051-4688 Québec Inc. (Transport Quélourdbec)

Payee / Applicant

A.R.P. Imperial Auto Inc.

Opposing Party / Applicant for Leave to Self Represent

Aurelio Robert Parravano

Proposed Representative (president and Principal Shareholder of A.r.p. Imperial Auto Inc.)

Michael Yassa

Named Individual / Claimant

Procedural Posture

Motion for Leave to Permit Corporate Self Representation Under Federal Court Rules, 1998, Rule 120 / Written Motion Heard Without Personal Appearance (decision on Leave to Represent)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a corporation may be represented by its officer under Rule 120 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998
  2. 2 Whether the evidentiary requirements (inability to pay counsel and authorization by the corporation) have been met
  3. 3 Whether the proposed representative would be a witness and thus disqualified from appearing as counsel

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was dismissed because the affidavit evidence failed to establish the corporation's inability to pay and did not demonstrate that Parravano was authorized to act; further, the affidavit suggested Parravano might be a central witness, which militates against granting leave under Rule 120 in light of binding authorities.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed without costs.

Orders

  • Motion dismissed without costs.