Frontenac Institution Inmate Committee v. Canada (Attorney General)
- Citation
- 2004 FC 534
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 6 April 2004
- Posture
- Breach of Contract (commercial Dispute) / Interlocutory Injunction Motion (pre Trial Interim Application)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 6 April 2004
- Posture
- Breach of Contract (commercial Dispute) / Interlocutory Injunction Motion (pre Trial Interim Application)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The motion was dismissed because the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and damages were an adequate remedy; therefore they did not satisfy the American Cyanamid test required for an interlocutory injunction, and the balance of convenience did not justify injunctive relief.
Court disposition
Application dismissed with costs
Orders
- Application dismissed
- Costs awarded to the Defendants
02
Material facts
Parties
Frontenac Institution Inmate Committee
Plaintiff Counsel: John FarantMichael Pochay, Secretary on behalf of Inmates of Frontenac Institution
Plaintiff Counsel: John FarantAttorney General of Canada (Correctional Services of Canada)
Defendant Counsel: Matthew Sullivan; Nancy Noble; Morris RosenbergAlternative Cable Technologies
Defendant Counsel: Matthew Sullivan; Nancy Noble; Morris RosenbergAmounts and remedies
- Channels Agreed: 52
- Movie Channels: 5
- Regular Channels: 47
03
Procedural history
Posture
Breach of Contract (commercial Dispute) / Interlocutory Injunction Motion (pre Trial Interim Application)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted compelling performance of the contract
- 02
Whether the Plaintiffs have standing or are parties to the contract
- 03
Whether there is irreparable harm if injunction is denied
- 04
Whether the balance of convenience favors the Plaintiffs
- 05
Whether damages are an adequate remedy
- 06
Whether injunctions may be granted against the Crown
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Plaintiffs sought an interim order compelling defendants to provide all contracted television service and to unblock movie programming; they denied the movies were x-rated and asserted entitlement to performance under the agreement.
- Respondent
- Defendants asserted some movies were x-rated and were properly blocked by Correctional Services; they denied the Inmate Committee was a contracting party; they argued this is a commercial dispute (not judicial review), that damages are an adequate remedy and that no irreparable harm was shown.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., [1975] AC 396 (H.L.) and applied in RJR-Macdonald Inc. v. Canada (A.G.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311
Applicant for interlocutory injunction must show a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favors injunction
- 02
Principle applied by the Court in these Reasons
Damages are an adequate remedy where monetary compensation can address the breach and therefore defeat the claim of irreparable harm
- 03
Corrections and Conditional Release Act, 1992 S.C., c. 20; noted by the Court
Distinction between commercial contract disputes and judicial review under statutory corrections regime
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The motion was dismissed because the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and damages were an adequate remedy; therefore they did not satisfy the American Cyanamid test required for an interlocutory injunction, and the balance of convenience did not justify injunctive relief.
Obiter and limits
- The Court did not decide whether the Inmate Committee is a contracting party or whether Plaintiffs have standing as that issue was unnecessary to resolve the motion
- The Court did not consider the particular legal difficulties of obtaining an injunction against the Crown in this case
- This is a commercial dispute and not a judicial review under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act
Court disposition
Application dismissed with costs
- Application dismissed
- Costs awarded to the Defendants
Source and reliance status
Federal Court · 6 April 2004
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Federal Court
Judgment· 6 April 2004
Frontenac Institution Inmate Committee v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2004-04-06 Neutral citation 2004 FC 534 File numbers T-2164-03 Decision Content Date: 20040406 Docket: T-2164-03 Citation: 2004 FC 534 BETWEEN:
FRONTENAC INSTITUTION INMATE COMMITTEE and MICHAEL POCHAY, Secretary on behalf of Inmates of Frontenac Institution Plaintiffs and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (CORRECTIONAL SERVICES OF CANADA) and ALTERNATIVE CABLE TECHNOLOGIES Defendants
REASONS FOR ORDER HARRINGTON J. [1] The Plaintiffs have taken an action, framed in breach of contract, against the Defendants for blocking from view at Frontenac Institution, a federal penitentiary, certain movies said by the Defendants to be "X-Rated". The case is yet to come to trial. [2] The Plaintiffs, as an interim measure, seek an order compelling the Defendants to fulfill the terms of the contract and to provide all television service as contracted. They deny the movies in question are x-rated. Although not called such, the Plaintiffs are really seeking an interlocutory injunction. [3] To put this application in context it is important to note that this is not a judicial review as contemplated by the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, 1992 S.C., c. 20, as amended. This is a commercial dispute. [4] Articles of agreement were made as of June 1st, 2003, between the Defendants for the provision of 47 cable television channels and 5 movie channels. The agreement was signed by the Defendants and by the Plaintiff the Frontenac Institution Inmate Committee of which the Plaintiff Michael Pochay is secretary. The Defendants strenuously deny that the Inmate Committee is a party to the contract. That issue need not be decided at this time. [5] Section 1.7 of the Statement of Work appended to the contract provides: The Contractor shall provide 47 channels; as selected and
agreed upon between the Contractor and Inmate Committee, plus 5 movie channels as selected. Any x-rated or above; movies shall be blocked out from viewing. The Contractor is the Defendant Alternative Cable Technologies. [6] The dispute relates to movies showing at certain times on the TMN 3 Movie Channel, which was one of the channels originally agreed upon. Correctional Services of Canada later determined that some of the movies shown on that channel were x-rated and directed the co-defendant to block them from view within the Frontenac Institution. [7] Even assuming, but without deciding, that the Plaintiffs have standing and either are a party to or are entitled to benefit from the contract, their motion must still be dismissed. I say this without considering the problems which arise from an attempt to obtain an injunction against the Crown. [8] It is well established that an applicant in motions such as these must show there is a serious issue to be tried, that it would suffer irreparable harm if the relief is not granted, and that the balance of convenience is in its favour (American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., [1975] AC. 396 (H.L.), RJR-Macdonald Inc. v. Canada (A.G.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311). The Plaintiffs must succeed on all three branches of this test. [9] It is clear to me there is no irreparable harm. If the Defendants are in breach of contract, damages are a perfectly suitable remedy. [10] Consequently, the application is and shall be dismissed, with costs. "Sean Harrington" J.F.C. Toronto, Ontario April 6, 2004
FEDERAL COURT Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record DOCKET: T-2164-03 STYLE OF CAUSE: FRONTENAC INSTITUTION INMATE COMMITTEE and MICHAEL POCHAY, Secretary on behalf of Inmates of Frontenac Institution Plaintiffs and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (CORRECTIONAL SERVICES OF CANADA) and
ALTERNATIVE CABLE TECHNOLOGIES Defendants PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: APRIL 5, 2004 REASONS FOR ORDER BY: HARRINGTON J. DATED: APRIL 6, 2004 APPEARANCES BY: Mr. John Farant
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS Mr. Matthew Sullivan Ms. Nancy Noble
FOR THE DEFENDANTS SOLICITORS OF RECORD: John M. Farant Barrister & Solicitor Kingston, Ontario
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE DEFENDANTS
FEDERAL COURT Date: 20040406 Docket: T-2164-03 BETWEEN: FRONTENAC INSTITUTION INMATE COMMITTEE and MICHAEL POCHAY, Secretary on behalf of Inmates of Frontenac Institution Plaintiffs and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (CORRECTIONAL SERVICES OF CANADA) and ALTERNATIVE CABLE TECHNOLOGIES Defendants
REASONS FOR ORDER
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.