Remo Imports Ltd v. Jaguar Cars Limited

Remo Imports Ltd v. Jaguar Cars Limited Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2006-12-20 Neutral citation 2006 FCA 416 File numbers A-62-06 Decision Content Date: 20061220 Docket: A-62-06 Citation: 2006 FCA 416 Present: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. BETWEEN: REMO IMPORTS LTD Appellant and JAGUAR CARS LIMITED and FORD MOTOR COMPANY OF CANADA, LIMITED/FORD DU CANADA LIMITÉE Carrying on business as JAGUAR CANADA Respondents Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties. Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on December 20, 2006. REASONS FOR ORDER BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. Date: 20061220 Docket: A-62-06 Citation: 2006 FCA 416 Present: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. BETWEEN: REMO IMPORTS LTD Appellant and JAGUAR CARS LIMITED and FORD MOTOR COMPANY OF CANADA, LIMITED/FORD DU CANADA LIMITÉE Carrying on business as JAGUAR CANADA Respondents REASONS FOR ORDER LÉTOURNEAU J.A. [1] He who plays with fire ends up burning himself. In this case, both parties have been playing with fire and shall live with the consequences of it. [2] The appellant and the respondents have been engaged in a war as to the contents of their respective Memorandum of Fact and Law (memorandum). The war has been conducted at the expenses of the Court and scarce judicial resources. Both parties have failed to live up to the letter and spirit of the Federal Courts Rules. [3] The whole saga started with an Order of Sexton J.A. dismissing the appellant’s request to file a memorandum in excess of 30 pages. The Order was issued on August 9, 2006. [4] On September 5, 2006, Décary J.A. noted that the appellant, in adding “end notes” to its memorandum, was attempting to circumvent the Order of Sexton J.A. He ordered that the memorandum be refused for filing and be sent back to the appellant. [5] On November 9, 2006, Noël J.A. observed in an Order that he issued that “both the appellant and the respondent, by incorporating into their memoranda substantial arguments found elsewhere in the record, are circumventing the prior order of this Court limiting the length of their memorandum to 30 pages”. He went on to add: This is the second time that compliance with that order is referred to the Court for adjudication. [6] Noël J.A.’s Order directed the parties to act as follows: The Registry is directed to send the Memoranda back to the parties. The appellant is given a period of fifteen days to re-file its Memorandum without incorporating by reference the 49 pages Amended Notice of Appeal. The respondents will re-file their Memorandum within ten days from the date of service of the appellant’s Memorandum without the inclusion in Appendix C of excerpts from their Trial Memorandum and without the incorporation of Appendix D. The material which the parties wish to incorporate into their memorandum is part of the record and can be referred to in the course of the hearing. However, the purpose of the memorandum is to set out a concise statement of the facts and the submissions (Rule 70). The parties are asked to abide by the letter and the spirit of the prior order of this Court and address the issues on appeal within the 30 page limit. [7] The respondents have, on December 4, 2006, served and filed a Supplemental Appeal Book that basically contains their memorandum at trial. The appellant who still does not have clean hands, as we shall see, objects to such filing. [8] After reviewing the parties’ arguments and this Court’s previous Orders, I am satisfied that the respondents are attempting to achieve something that was not authorized by the Orders of Noël J.A., Nadon J.A., Sexton J.A. and Décary J.A. Therefore, the respondents’ Supplemental Appeal Book will be struck from the record and sent back to them. [9] In addition, Appendix C to the respondents’ memorandum will be deleted. If the respondents feel that the references found therein will be useful to the Court, they can incorporate them into their memorandum with the exclusion of any reference to their Supplemental Appeal Book and the material contained therein. [10] This brings me to the two memoranda submitted by the appellant and the respondents. Both memoranda are defective and in violation of Rules 65 and 70 of the Federal Courts Rules. Systematically, the pages contain more than 30 lines. The top and bottom margins are not respected. In the end, the memoranda contain more than 30 pages and are in violation of Sexton J.A.’ Order: see Merchant v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2001 FCA 19, at paragraphs 10 and 11. [11] So far, both parties have been abusing the process of the Court with impunity. The buck stops here. [12] The memoranda of both the appellant and the respondents will be struck from the record and returned to them. They both shall serve and file a new memorandum by January 17, 2007 that strictly complies with Rules 65 and 70 of the Federal Courts Rules. Failure by any party to abide by this Court’s Order will lead to sanctions ranging from a deemed waiver by the defaulting party of its right to file a memorandum, dismissal of the proceeding without further notice and the imposition of costs to counsel of record, to the issuance of a show cause order as to why the defaulting counsel of record should not be found guilty of contempt. “Gilles Létourneau” J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-62-06 STYLE OF CAUSE: REMO IMPORTS LTD. v. JAGUAR CARS LIMITED ET AL. MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES REASONS FOR ORDER BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. DATED: December 20, 2006 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: Richard Uditsky Arthur Garvis FOR THE APPELLANT J. Douglas Wilson Pauline Bosman FOR THE RESPONDENTS SOLICITORS OF RECORD: McMillan Binch Mendelsohn LLP Montreal, Quebec FOR THE APPELLANT Ridout & Maybee LLP Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENTS