Allied Signal Inc. v. Du Pont Canada Inc. and Complax Corp., (1998) 150 F.T.R. 72 (TD)

• Judge: Hugessen, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 01, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1998), 150 F.T.R. 72 (TD)

Allied Signal Inc. v. Du Pont Can. Inc. (1998), 150 F.T.R. 72 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] F.T.R. TBEd. JN.068

AlliedSignal Inc. (plaintiff) v. Du Pont Canada Inc. and the Complax Corporation (defendants)

(T-2234-89)

Indexed As: Allied Signal Inc. v. Du Pont Canada Inc. and Complax Corp.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Hugessen, J.

June 1, 1998.

Summary:

A motion was brought in the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, under rule 49 of the Federal Court Rules (1998) to transfer proceedings presently pending in the Court of Appeal to the Trial Division. The appeals were properly brought under the old Federal Court Rules and were from a decision of a Trial Division judge sitting as a referee. A further appeal in the matter, properly brought under the new Rules, was also pending in the Court of Appeal.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the motion. Motions under rule 49 should be brought in the division in which the proceedings were pending and not in the division to which it was sought to transfer those proceedings. Further, the case was bound to go to the Court of Appeal in any event and it was an exercise in futility to expect a single judge of the Trial Division to sit in appeal from a decision of another single judge of the same division.

Editor's Note: For other decisions relating to this matter, see 68 F.T.R. 17; 70 F.T.R. 248; 104 F.T.R. 143; 142 F.T.R. 241; 149 F.T.R. 130; 184 N.R. 113 and 192 N.R. 282.

Courts - Topic 4013

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - General - Transfer of proceedings - A motion was brought in the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, under rule 49 of the Federal Court Rules (1998) to transfer proceedings presently pending in the Court of Appeal to the Trial Division - The appeals, from a decision of a Trial Division judge sitting as a referee, were properly brought under the old Rules - Another appeal in the matter, properly brought under the new Rules, was also pending in the Court of Appeal - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the motion - Motions under rule 49 should be brought in the division in which the proceedings were pending, not in the division to which it was sought to transfer those proceedings - Further, the case was bound to go to the Court of Appeal in any event and it was an exercise in futility to expect a single judge of the Trial Division to sit in appeal from a decision of another single judge of the same division.

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Rules (1998), rule 49 [para. 1].

Counsel:

Hélene D'Ioro, for the plaintiff;

Arthur Renaud, for the defendants.

Solicitors of Record:

Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, Ottawa, Ontario, for the plaintiff;

Sim, Hughes, Ashton & McKay, Toronto, Ontario, for the defendants.

This matter was heard by telephone conference on June 1, 1998, by Hugessen, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following oral decision on the same date.