Urus Industrial Corp. v. Lifegear Inc.
The appeal is dismissed because the Motions Judge correctly found that the appellant knowingly contravened the prior judgment, properly weighed aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and imposed a fine that was not grossly excessive.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2005 FCA 63
- Parties
- Appellant: URUS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION; Respondent: LIFEGEAR, INC.; Respondent: PRIDE INTERNATIONAL INC.
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 17 February 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Contempt, Penalty, Enforcement of Injunctions
- 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
URUS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION
Appellant
LIFEGEAR, INC.
Respondent
PRIDE INTERNATIONAL INC.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Motions Judge erred in finding the appellant in contempt for knowingly contravening a prior judgment
- 2 Whether the $10,000 fine for contempt was grossly excessive
- 3 Whether there was any misapprehension of facts or error in principle by the Motions Judge
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed because the Motions Judge correctly found that the appellant knowingly contravened the prior judgment, properly weighed aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and imposed a fine that was not grossly excessive.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Contempt fine of $10,000 upheld
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Urus Industrial Corp. v. Lifegear Inc. Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2005-02-17 Neutral citation 2005 FCA 63 File numbers A-57-04 Decision Content Date: 20050217 Docket: A-57-04 Citation: 2005 FCA 63 Toronto, Ontario, February 17th, 2005 CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J. A. SEXTON J.A. EVANS J. A. BETWEEN: URUS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION Appellant and LIFEGEAR, INC. and PRIDE INTERNATIONAL INC. Respondents Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on February 15, 2005. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, on February 15, 2005. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SEXTON J.A. Date: 20050217 Docket: A-57-04 Citation: 2005 FCA 63 Toronto, Ontario, February 17th , 2005 CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J. A. SEXTON J.A. EVANS J. A. BETWEEN: URUS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION Appellant and LIFEGEAR, INC. and PRIDE INTERNATIONAL INC. Respondents REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario on February 15th, 2005) SEXTON J.A. [1] We are unable to conclude that the Motions Judge erred in finding the Appellant in contempt by reason of knowingly contravening the Reasons and formal Judgment of Hugessen J. and imposing the fine of $ 10, 000 for contempt in this case. The Motions Judge considered the aggravating circumstances including the fact that the Appellant continued to advertise and sell product for a period of approximately 2 months after release of the Reasons for Judgment of Hugessen J. which clearly enjoined such activity. The Motions Judge further took into consideration the mitigating circumstances including the fact that once a formal order was issued, the Appellant complied reasonably promptly. [2] We see no error in principle in the reasons of the Motions Judge and no misapprehension of the facts and no obvious injustice, nor do we consider the fine imposed to be grossly excessive as argued by the Appellant. The appeal will be dismissed. "J. E. Sexton" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-57-04 STYLE OF CAUSE: URUS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION Appellant and LIFEGEAR, INC. and PRIDE INTERNATIONAL INC. Respondents PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 15,2005 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: (ROTHSTEIN, SEXTON, EVANS JJ.A.) DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: SEXTON J.A. APPEARANCES: Brian D. Belmont FOR APPELLANT No One Appearing FOR RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Belmont ,Fine & Associates FOR APPELLANT Toronto, Ontario No One Appearing FOR RESPONDENT