P.V.I. International Inc. v. Canada (Commissioner of Competition)

P.V.I. International Inc. v. Canada (Commissioner of Competition) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2003-02-14 Neutral citation 2003 FCA 83 File numbers A-408-02 Decision Content Date: 20030214 Docket: A-408-02 Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 83 PRESENT: NOËL J.A. BETWEEN: P.V.I. INTERNATIONAL INC., MICHAEL GOLKA AND DARREN GOLKA Appellants and THE COMMISSIONER OF COMPETITION Respondent Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties. Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on February 14, 2003. REASONS FOR ORDER BY: NOËL J.A. Date: 20030214 Docket: A-408-02 Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 83 PRESENT: NOËL J.A. BETWEEN: P.V.I. INTERNATIONAL INC., MICHAEL GOLKA AND DARREN GOLKA Appellants and THE COMMISSIONER OF COMPETITION Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER NOËL J.A. [1] This is a motion brought pursuant to Rules 4, 221 and 369 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 to strike out certain grounds of appeal from the Amended Notice of Appeal served on or about December 3, 2002. [2] The respondent Commissioner of Competition moves that the following grounds be struck: (a) Ground 1; (b) ground 2; (c) that part of Ground 4 that provides as follows: "confusing the concept of fuel efficiency with combustion efficiency and"; (d) ground 5; (e) grounds 6(a) and (b); and (f) grounds 7(c) and (e). [3] The respondent contends that the order of this Court dated November 27, 2002 does not provide for the inclusion of such grounds. The respondent makes two separate submissions in support of this claim: first, that the order should be read as allowing the inclusion of the 14 proposed grounds only "to the extent" that they are consistent with the original six grounds; second, that the grounds constitute alleged errors of fact for which the order specifically denies leave. [4] Both of these arguments are without merit. With respect to the first argument, the order clearly provided that the 6 grounds of the original Notice of Appeal may be replaced by the 14 grounds proposed by the appellants. The words "to the extent" do not limit the grounds in the manner suggested by the respondent; the order was granted to the extent that the 14 grounds could be included in the Amended Notice of Appeal, while leave to appeal the proposed factual issue was denied. [5] It follows that the second argument put forth by the respondent is Res Judicata. The nature of the alleged errors contained within the grounds is a matter which was before this Court when it made its order of November 27, 2002. The Court decided at that time that the 14 grounds proposed by the appellants should be included in the Amended Notice of Appeal and its decision in this regard cannot now be revisited by means of the respondent's motion to strike. The respondents motion will be denied with costs [6] The parties also seeks an order determining the contents of the appeal book. After considering the submissions of the parties and having regard to the denial of the respondents' motion to strike, the Appeal Book will be constituted by the documents proposed by the appellants (less tabs 70 and 74 to exhibit CR-98) to which will be added the documents proposed by the respondent with the exemption of documents constituting written arguments (documents 74, 72, 65 D, 64 A, 50 and 46). [7] An order is issued accordingly. "Marc Noël" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET:A-408-02 STYLE OF CAUSE: P.V.I. INTERNATIONAL INC. et al. v. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMPETITION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES REASONS FOR ORDER BY: NOËL J.A. DATED:February 14, 2003 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: Ellery C. LewFOR THE APPELLANT Arsalaan HyderFOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: WITTEN LLPFOR THE APPELLANT Edmonton, Alberta Morris RosenbergFOR THE RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario