Date: 19990920
Docket: T-1095-99
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC, SEPTEMBER 20, 1999
BEFORE: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
Between:
NABISCO LTD/NABISCO LTÉE,
Plaintiff,
AND
ASSOCIATED BRANDS INC.,
Defendant.
Motion by the plaintiff and cross-defendant for:
| - an order striking paragraphs 8, 9, 13, 14, 20 and 28(c) from the Defence and Cross-Demand; |
| - alternatively, an order directing the defendant and cross-plaintiff to provide the particulars requested regarding paragraphs 8, 9, 13, 14, 20 and 28(c) of the Defence and Cross-Demand within 30 days of the judgment to be rendered on the instant motion, otherwise the Defence and Cross-Demand will be struck out; |
| - an order allowing the plaintiff and cross-defendant to file its reply and cross-defence within 30 days of the time set for providing the particulars and documents, or alternatively within 30 days of the judgment to be rendered on the instant motion; |
| - any other order this Court may see fit to make in the circumstances; |
| - the whole with costs against the defendant and cross-plaintiff, if opposed. |
[Rules 181(2) and 221(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d)
of the Federal Court Rules (1998)]
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY:
[1] The plaintiff readily accepted the Court's view that there is no need to strike any of the paragraphs in the Defence and Cross-Demand ("the Defence").
[2] As to the request for particulars, the Court might have been willing to grant the plaintiff the particulars it sought in respect of paragraphs 8, 14 and 20 of the Defence. However, the affidavit submitted in support of this motion adopted a much too vague and limited style and wording. That affidavit did not contain the specific factual explanations given by counsel for the plaintiff in the pleading. For this reason, paragraphs 8, 14, and 20 of the Defence will not have to be further clarified.
[3] Moreover, as regards the particulars sought in respect of paragraphs 9, 13 and 20 of the Defence, I consider that paragraphs 24, 38 and 47 of the written submissions filed by the defendant against the motion in question respectively provide the reasons why those paragraphs of the Defence do not have to be given greater clarification at this stage in order for the plaintiff to provide a coherent reply to the Defence.
[4] Finally, it seems clear that no further particulars are necessary on paragraph 28(c) of the Defence.
[5] Additionally, the plaintiff will have 30 days from the date of this order to serve and file its reply and cross-defence.
[6] This motion is accordingly dismissed with costs to the defendant. For greater clarity, these costs should not include the cost of translation, mentioned by the defendant in paragraph 60 of its written submissions.
| Richard Morneau Prothonotary |
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier, LL. B.
| Federal Court of Canada Trial Division Date: 19990920 Docket: T-1095-99 Between: NABISCO LTD/NABISCO LTÉE, Plaintiff, AND ASSOCIATED BRANDS INC., Defendant. REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER |
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE No.: T-1095-99
STYLE OF CAUSE: NABISCO LTD/NABISCO LTÉE,
Plaintiff,
AND
ASSOCIATED BRANDS INC.,
Defendant.
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: September 13, 1999
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
DATE OF REASONS FOR ORDER: September 20, 1999
APPEARANCES:
Daniel Drapeau for the plaintiff
A.M. Shaughnessy for the defendant
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Ogilvy, Renault for the plaintiff
Daniel Drapeau
Montréal, Quebec
Dimock, Stratton, Clarizio for the defendant
A.M. Shaughnessy
Toronto, Ontario