Date: 20060315
Montréal, Quebec, March 15, 2006
PRESENT: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
BETWEEN:
PARFUMS CHRISTIAN DIOR, SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME
and
PARFUMS CHRISTIAN DIOR CANADA INC.
Plaintiffs
and
SABRINA MANSOUR carrying on business as
SPA DIOR and SPA DI’OR
and
SPADI’OR INC.
Motion by Sabrina Mansour for an order authorizing her to represent co‑defendant SPADI’OR INC.
[Rule 120 of the Federal Court Rules]
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is a motion by the president and sole shareholder of co-defendant SPADI’OR Inc. to be granted leave to represent that corporation.
[2] Ms. Mansour’s motion is based on Rule 120 of the Federal Courts Rules. The rule reads as follows:
|
120. A corporation, partnership or unincorporated association shall be represented by a solicitor in all proceedings, unless the Court in special circumstances grants leave to it to be represented by an officer, partner or member, as the case may be. |
120. Une personne morale, une société de personnes ou une association sans personnalité morale se fait représenter par un avocat dans toute instance, à moins que la Cour, à cause de circonstances particulières, ne l’autorise à se faire représenter par un de ses dirigeants, associés ou membres, selon le cas. |
[3] Definite evidence must be submitted in connection with such a motion. In S.A.R. Group Relocation Inc. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2002), 289 N.R. 163, at page 164, the Federal Court of Appeal noted the following:
For the court to make such an order in these circumstances it must be satisfied that the corporations are truly unable to pay for a lawyer and that the person sought to be allowed to represent them has indeed been authorized by the corporations to represent them. (Source Services Corp. v. Source Personal Inc. (1995), 105 F.T.R. 42 (T.D.); NsC Diesel Power Inc. (Bankrupt), Re (1995), 96 F.T.R. 161 (T.D.)). There is no clear evidence here on either point. Further, it is relevant to consider whether the proposed representative would also be a witness, as counsel cannot appear in cases where they are witnesses. (See Kobetek Systems Ltd. v. Canada, [1998] F.T.R. Uned. 9; [1998] 1 C.T.C. 308).
(Emphasis added.)
[4] The evidence in this case is far from meeting these evidentiary requirements. Essentially, all that Ms. Mansour said in her affidavit, through short allegations unsupported by the requisite documentary and financial evidence, was that the corporation SPADI’OR Inc. is unable to pay for a lawyer. This is not sufficient to meet the evidentiary requirement.
[5] It is also clear that Ms. Mansour will be acting as a key witness in her own defence as well as that of the co-defendant corporation.
[6] For all these reasons, this motion is dismissed, costs in the cause.
[7] Furthermore, as discussed during the hearing on March 13, 2006, to advance this file as expeditiously as possible, the parties shall respect the following schedule:
1. Sabrina Mansour shall serve and file her defence on or before April 5, 2006.
2. On or before April 5, 2006, co-defendant SPADI’OR Inc. shall appoint a solicitor as solicitor of record, who shall, by the same date, provide the Registry of this Court and counsel for the plaintiff with his or her address and telephone number(s). Within twenty (20) days following this notice, SPADI’OR Inc. shall serve and file its defence.
3. The computation of the time limit for filing the plaintiff’s reply shall begin when the defence of SPADI’OR Inc. has been served.
Certified true translation
Francie Gow
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-278-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: PARFUMS CHRISTIAN DIOR, SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME
and
PARFUMS CHRISTIAN DIOR CANADA INC.
and
SABRINA MANSOUR carrying on business as SPA DIOR and SPA DI=OR and
SPADI=OR INC.
PLACE OF HEALING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: March 13, 2006
REASONS FOR ORDER: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
DATED: March 15, 2006
APPEARANCES:
France Lessard FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
Sabrina Mansour FOR THE DEFENDANTS
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Léger Robic Richard, LLP FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
Montréal, Quebec