Cinar Corporation v. Robinson

Cinar Corporation v. Robinson

The motion for substantial security was dismissed because s.60(1)(b) has been historically treated as requiring only a symbolic deposit for costs, substantial security is appropriately imposed via stay mechanisms under ss.65/65.1 or provincial rules, Fournier J.A.'s stay conditions remain in force and ordering large security would undermine access to the Court and effectively re-litigate the stay decision.

Citation
2012 SCC 25
Parties
Applicants/respondents on Motion: Cinar Corporation and Les Films Cinar Inc.; Respondents/applicants on Motion: Claude Robinson and Les Productions Nilem Inc.; Applicants/respondents on Motion: Ronald A. Weinberg (in his capacity as sole liquidator of the succession of the late Micheline Charest); Applicants/respondents on Motion: Christophe Izard; France Animation S.A.; Ravensburger Film + TV GmbH; RTV Family Entertainment AG
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Motion for Security (leave to Appeal) / Motion Filed After Leave to Appeal Process; Decided by Supreme Court on Motion
Outcome
Motion dismissed without costs.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Stay of Execution, Leave to Appeal, Access to Court
Source Language
English
Appeal Civil Procedure Administrative Law Intellectual Property Security for Costs Stay of Execution Leave to Appeal Access to Court

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cinar Corporation and Les Films Cinar Inc.

Applicants/respondents on Motion

Claude Robinson and Les Productions Nilem Inc.

Respondents/applicants on Motion

Ronald A. Weinberg (in his capacity as sole liquidator of the succession of the late Micheline Charest)

Applicants/respondents on Motion

Christophe Izard; France Animation S.A.; Ravensburger Film + TV GmbH; RTV Family Entertainment AG

Applicants/respondents on Motion

Procedural Posture

Motion for Security (leave to Appeal) / Motion Filed After Leave to Appeal Process; Decided by Supreme Court on Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants on application for leave to appeal must provide security for amounts payable if appeals are unsuccessful under s.60(1)(b) of the Supreme Court Act and Rule 47
  2. 2 Whether the Supreme Court should order substantial security as a condition during the leave to appeal process as opposed to using ss.65/65.1 or provincial stay mechanisms
  3. 3 Whether ordering substantial security would impede access to the Supreme Court

Ratio Decidendi

The motion for substantial security was dismissed because s.60(1)(b) has been historically treated as requiring only a symbolic deposit for costs, substantial security is appropriately imposed via stay mechanisms under ss.65/65.1 or provincial rules, Fournier J.A.'s stay conditions remain in force and ordering large security would undermine access to the Court and effectively re-litigate the stay decision.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed without costs.

Orders

  • Motion dismissed without costs.