Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20010423

Docket: T-1444-00

Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 376

BETWEEN:

RAGDOLL PRODUCTIONS (UK)LIMITED and

THE ITSY BITSY ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY and

THE ITSY BITSY ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY (CANADA), INC.

Plaintiffs

-and-

WONDERLAND COSTUMES LTD. and

MARY MARTINO

Defendants

                    REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

GILES A.S.P.


[1]    The motion before me seeks an Order extending the time for filing the defence and counterclaim which was served within 30 days of service of the statement of claim but was not filed. The Plaintiff objects to the filing alleging that the motion materials fail to satisfy the test for obtaining an extension set out in Canada (AG) v. Hennely (1999), 244 N.R. 399 (Fed. C.A.) as it fails to disclose a defence on the merits. The Plaintiffs state "in any event of the foregoing, the Defendant [sic] take no position with respect to the Defendants, request to extend time to file Defendants' statement of defence but do object to the request to file the counterclaim." The Plaintiffs have addressed the matter of the counterclaim in a cross-motion.

[2]    I take the Plaintiffs' position to be that the defence is deficient but they do not really care. They certainly have not bothered to develop their argument. The Defendants have not replied nor have they responded to the Plaintiffs cross-motion.

[3]    It is my view that leave should not be given to file a pleading which may be struck out.

[4]    The defence of Mary Martineau is found in paragraph 11 of the proposed defence. It implies that she did the infringing act but only did so as a director and officer. If she did the acts, she would be responsible. No reasonable defence is alleged.

[5]    If Mary Martineau infringed as an officer of the corporate defendant, the corporate defendant could be vicariously liable. The corporate defendant appears to admit it has stored and rented a Teletubbies costume. A material included by the Plaintiffs in their generic term "intellectual property". The defence of the corporate defendant is certainly incomplete. I do not intend to allow the late filing of the statement of defence tendered but in view of the attitude of the Plaintiffs, would allow a further application.


[6]                With regard to the counterclaim, by it the Defendant, Mary Martineau seeks:

(a)        Damages in the amount of $100,000.00 in Tort for the intentional infliction of mental suffering, and

(b)        Damages in the amount of $100,000.00 for continuing allegations of trademark infringement and intellectual property infringement.

[7]                This Court has no jurisdiction in matters of intentional infliction of mental suffering. The counterclaim could therefore be struck at least in part. I will not make an order extending time to let it be filed. With regard to damages for continuing allegations of trademark and intellectual property infringement, at best, particulars would be necessary to sustain such a plea within the jurisdiction.

ORDER

[8]                The motion for an Order extending the time for filing a statement of defence and counterclaim is dismissed with leave to re-apply within 30 days of the date of this Order to file a defence or defence and counterclaim within the jurisdiction of the Court.

[9]                The cross-motion being moot is dismissed.


[10]            The costs of the motion for an Order extending, fixed at $200.00 are awarded to the Plaintiff in the cause.

     "Peter A. K. Giles"

                                                                                                  A.S.P.                       

Toronto, Ontario

April 23, 2001


FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

COURT NO:                                        T-1444-00

STYLE OF CAUSE:                             RAGDOLL PRODUCTIONS (UK)LIMITED and

THE ITSY BITSY ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY and THE ITSY BITSY ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY (CANADA), INC.

Plaintiffs

-and-

WONDERLAND COSTUMES LTD. and

MARY MARTINO

Defendants

CONSIDERED AT TORONTO, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 369

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER BY:                                GILES A.S.P.

DATED:                                                MONDAY, APRIL 23, 2001

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:      Mr. Lorne Lipkus, and

Ms. Georgina Starkman Danzig

For the Plaintiffs

Mr. Kenneth Alexander

For the Defendants

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:           Kestenberg Siegal Lipkus

Barristers & Solicitors

65 Granby Street

Toronto, Ontario

M5B 1H8

For the Plaintiffs


Ball & Alexander

Barristers & Solicitors

82 Scollard Street

Toronto, Ontario

M5R 1G2

For the Defendants


FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                            Date: 20010423

                                                                                              Docket: T-1444-00

Between:

RAGDOLL PRODUCTIONS (UK)LIMITED and THE ITSY BITSY ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY and THE ITSY BITSY ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY (CANADA), INC.

Plaintiffs

-and-

WONDERLAND COSTUMES LTD. and

MARY MARTINO

Defendants

                                                 

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER

                                                 

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.