Nadeau Poultry Farm - Order refusing Westco's request to adjourn the sentencing hearing pending the determination of its appeal from the Tribunal's contempt Order
The Tribunal refused Westco's adjournment request because s.9(2) mandates expedition of Tribunal proceedings, the prevailing criminal law principle disfavors postponing sentence pending appeal, and Westco failed to provide convincing reasons to depart from that rule; accordingly the sentencing hearing was scheduled...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2010 Comp Trib 3
- Parties
- Applicant: Nadeau Ferme Avicole Limitée / Nadeau Poultry Farm Limited; Respondent: Groupe Westco Inc.; Groupe Dynaco, Coopérative Agroalimentaire; Volailles Acadia S.E.C.; Volailles Acadia Inc. / Acadia Poultry Inc.
- Court
- Competition Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 19 February 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Refusal to Deal – Interim Order Under the Competition Act (s.75; S.104) / Adjournment Request Regarding Sentencing Hearing Pending Appeal From Tribunal Contempt Order (pre‑sentencing Scheduling)
- Outcome
- Request to adjourn the sentencing hearing refused; sentencing hearing scheduled to proceed
- Legal Topics
- Refusal to Deal, Contempt, Adjournment, Sentencing, Interim Order
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Nadeau Ferme Avicole Limitée / Nadeau Poultry Farm Limited
Applicant
Groupe Westco Inc.; Groupe Dynaco, Coopérative Agroalimentaire; Volailles Acadia S.E.C.; Volailles Acadia Inc. / Acadia Poultry Inc.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Refusal to Deal – Interim Order Under the Competition Act (s.75; S.104) / Adjournment Request Regarding Sentencing Hearing Pending Appeal From Tribunal Contempt Order (pre‑sentencing Scheduling)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentencing hearing should be adjourned pending determination of Westco's appeal from the Tribunal's Contempt Order
- 2 Application of Competition Tribunal Act s.9(2) duty to deal with proceedings informally and expeditiously
- 3 Whether Westco provided convincing reasons to depart from the general rule against postponing sentence pending appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal refused Westco's adjournment request because s.9(2) mandates expedition of Tribunal proceedings, the prevailing criminal law principle disfavors postponing sentence pending appeal, and Westco failed to provide convincing reasons to depart from that rule; accordingly the sentencing hearing was scheduled to proceed.
Court Disposition
Request to adjourn the sentencing hearing refused; sentencing hearing scheduled to proceed
Orders
- Westco’s request for an adjournment of the sentencing hearing is refused.
- Sentencing hearing to be held at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, April 29, 2010 and Friday, April 30, 2010 in the Hearing Room of the Competition Tribunal, 600-90 Sparks Street, Ottawa.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Nadeau Poultry Farm - Order refusing Westco's request to adjourn the sentencing hearing pending the determination of its appeal from the Tribunal's contempt Order Collection Case Documents Date Filed 2010-02-19 Neutral citation 2010 Comp Trib 3 File Number CT-2008-004 Document Type Decisions Type of Application Interim Order (Refusal to Deal) Refusal to Deal Section(s) of the Competition Act s. 75; ss. 104 (75) Proceeding Number 617 Decision Content Competition Tribunal Tribunal de la Concurrence Reference: Nadeau Poultry Farm Limited v. Groupe Westco Inc., 2010 Comp. Trib. 3 File No.: CT-2008-004 Registry Document No.: 0617 IN THE MATTER of the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, as amended; AND IN THE MATTER of an Application by Nadeau Ferme Avicole Limitée/Nadeau Poultry Farm Limited for an Order pursuant to section 75 of the Competition Act; AND IN THE MATTER of an Application by Nadeau Ferme Avicole Limitée/Nadeau Poultry Farm Limited for an Interim Order pursuant to section 104 of the Competition Act; AND IN THE MATTER of a Motion by Nadeau Ferme Avicole Limitée/Nadeau Poultry Farm Limited for a Show Cause Order; AND IN THE MATTER of a Motion by the Respondent Groupe Westco Inc. for an Order or Direction regarding the Tribunal’s Interim Supply Order; B E T W E E N: Nadeau Ferme Avicole Limitée/ Nadeau Poultry Farm Limited (applicant) and Groupe Westco Inc. and Groupe Dynaco, Coopérative Agroalimentaire, and Volailles Acadia S.E.C. and Volailles Acadia Inc./ Acadia Poultry Inc. (respondents) Decided on the basis of the written record. Before Judicial Member: Blanchard J. Date of Order: February 19, 2010 Order signed by: Justice Edmond P. Blanchard ORDER REFUSING WESTCO’S REQUEST TO ADJOURN THE SENTENCING HEARING PENDING THE DETERMINATION OF ITS APPEAL FROM THE TRIBUNAL’S CONTEMPT ORDER [1] FURTHER TO a letter filed by the Respondent Groupe Westco Inc. on February 10, 2010, in which it requests that the sentencing hearing be adjourned pending the determination of its appeal from the Tribunal’s Contempt Order dated January 22, 2010; [2] AND FURTHER TO a letter filed by the Applicant Nadeau Poultry Farm Limited on February 16, 2010, in which it opposes Westco’s request for an adjournment; [3] AND FURTHER TO the letter filed by Groupe Westco Inc. on February 17, 2010, in reply to the Applicant’s letter; [4] AND WHEREAS the Tribunal agrees with the Applicant’s position that the sentencing hearing should not be delayed; [5] AND WHEREAS subsection 9(2) of the Competition Tribunal Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 19 (2nd Suppl.), couched in imperative language, provides that all proceedings before the Tribunal shall be dealt with as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness permit; [6] AND UPON noting that as a general rule in criminal law, the imposition of a sentence should not be postponed pending the determination of an appeal from the conviction (see e.g. E.G. Ewaschuk, Criminal Pleadings & Practice in Canada, looseleaf (Aurora: Canada Law Book, 1987) at p. 18-137); [7] AND WHEREAS Groupe Westco Inc. has not provided convincing reasons justifying the departure from the usual rule; THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT: [8] Westco’s request for an adjournment of the sentencing hearing is refused; [9] Given the availability of counsel, the sentencing hearing will be held, starting at 9:30 a.m., on Thursday, April 29, 2010, and Friday, April 30, 2010, in the Hearing Room of the Competition Tribunal located at 600-90 Sparks Street, Ottawa. [10] The Applicant and the Respondent Groupe Westco Inc. shall serve and file written submissions on sentence in accordance with paragraph 94 of the Tribunal’s Reasons for Order and Contempt Order dated January 22, 2010; [11] The Tribunal Registry shall contact counsel for both parties to set a date for a case management conference. A direction shall issue thereafter regarding the case management conference. DATED at Ottawa, this 19th day of February, 2010. SIGNED on behalf of the Tribunal by Justice Blanchard. (s) Edmond P. Blanchard COUNSEL: For the applicant Nadeau Ferme Avicole Limitée/Nadeau Poultry Farm Limited Leah Price Ron Folkes Andrea Marsland For the respondent Groupe Westco Inc. Éric C. Lefebvre Denis Gascon Martha A. Healey Alexandre Bourbonnais Geoffrey Conrad