Coca-Cola Ltd. et al. v. Pardhan et al., (1999) 179 F.T.R. 42 (TD)

• Judge: Lufty, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 16, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1999), 179 F.T.R. 42 (TD)

Coca-Cola Ltd. v. Pardhan (1999), 179 F.T.R. 42 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] F.T.R. TBEd. DE.040

Coca-Cola Ltd. and Coca-Cola Bottling Ltd. (plaintiffs) v. Musadiq Pardhan c.o.b. as Universal Exporters, and John Doe and Jane Doe and Other Persons Unknown to the Plaintiff Who Offer for Sale, Sell, Export, or Deal in Transshipping Coca-Cola Products (defendants)

(T-2685-95)

Indexed As: Coca-Cola Ltd. et al. v. Pardhan et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Lufty, J.

November 16, 1999.

Summary:

In 1996, Coca-Cola obtained an injunc­tion prohibiting the defendants from ex­porting its products from Canada. Coca-Cola applied for a court order finding the defendants, specifi­cally Musadiq Pardhan and Mustafa Pardhan, guilty of contempt for violating the injunc­tion.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, found the defendant Musadiq Pardhan guilty and the defendant Mustafa Pardhan not guilty.

Contempt - Topic 45

General - Elements of contempt - Knowl­edge of court order - In 1996, Coca-Cola obtained an injunction prohibiting the defendants from exporting its products from Canada - The injunction was dis­solved in 1997 - Coca-Cola applied for a court order finding the defendants Musadiq Pardhan and Mustafa Pardhan guilty of contempt for violating the in­junction in 1996-97 - The defendants raised the issue of whether they had knowledge of the injunction - The Feder­al Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that knowledge could be implied in cer­tain circumstances - The defendants' lawyer had been present at the hearing in January 1996 and they were sent a copy of the order by mail - The court looked to filed court documents and testimony to deter­mine that the defendants had knowl­edge by March 1996 - See para­graphs 20 to 29 and 128.

Contempt - Topic 690

What constitutes contempt - Judgments and orders - Injunctions - Disobedience of - In 1996, Coca-Cola obtained an injunction prohibiting the defendants from exporting its products from Canada - Coca-Cola applied for a court order finding the defen­dants Musadiq Pardhan and Mustafa Pardhan guilty of contempt for violating the injunction in 1996-97 - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, found the defendant Musadiq Pardhan guilty and the defend­ant Mustafa Pardhan not guilty - The burden of proof was beyond a reason­able doubt - The evidence showed that the defendant Musadiq's company exported coca-cola products in 1996-97 - Mustafa Pardhan was involved in the company but there was no direct evidence linking his role to an involvement in the viol­ation of the order.

Contempt - Topic 1002

What constitutes contempt - Legal pro­cess - Injunctions - Violation of - [See Con­tempt - Topic 690 ].

Contempt - Topic 5083

Practice - Evidence and proof - Burden of proof - [See Contempt - Topic 690 ].

Evidence - Topic 110

Degree, standard or burden of proof - Standard or degree of proof - Lack of direct evidence - [See Contempt - Topic 690 ].

Injunctions - Topic 3245

The order - Contents - Errors - Effect of - In 1996, Coca-Cola obtained an injunction prohibiting the defendants from exporting its products from Canada - The injunction was dissolved in 1997 - Coca-Cola applied for a court order finding the defendants, Musadiq Pardhan and Mustafa Pardhan guilty of contempt for violating the injunc­tion in 1996-97 - The defendants raised the issue of certain typographical errors and omissions in the document - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, found the defendant Musadiq Pardhan guilty and the defendant Mustafa Pardhan not guilty - The court held that typographical errors in the injunction did not make it ineffective - It was coherent and mean­ingful - An error in an order was no defence to a contempt proceeding - See paragraphs 12 to 19.

Cases Noticed:

Coca-Cola Ltd. et al. v. Pardhan et al. (1997), 139 F.T.R. 223; 77 C.P.R.(3d) 501 (T.D.), affd. (1999), 240 N.R. 211; 85 C.P.R.(3d) 489 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 4, footnote 4].

Coca-Cola Ltd. et al. v. Pardhan et al. (1998), 149 F.T.R. 139; 81 C.P.R.(3d) 244 (T.D.), affd. (1999), 240 N.R. 388; 85 C.P.R.(3d) 501 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5, footnote 5].

Taylor and Western Guard Party v. Cana­dian Human Rights Commission, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892; 117 N.R. 191, appld. [para. 6, footnote 8].

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canadian Liberty Net et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 626; 224 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 6, footnote 8].

Baxter Laboratories of Canada Ltd., Travenol Laboratories Inc. and Baxter Travenol Laboratories Inc. et al. v. Cut­ter (Canada) Ltd., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 388; 50 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 14, footnote 10].

Apple Computer Inc. v. Minitronics of Canada Ltd. et al., [1988] 2 F.C. 265; 17 F.T.R. 52 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 15, footnote 11].

Taylor and Western Guard Party v. Cana­dian Human Rights Commission, [1987] 3 F.C. 593; 78 N.R. 180 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 13].

Canada Metal Co. v. Canadian Broad­cast­ing Corp. et al. (No. 2) (1974), 4 O.R.(2d) 585 (H.C.), affd. (1975), 11 O.R.(2d) 167 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 13].

Bhatnager v. Canada (Minister of Em­ploy­ment and Immigration), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 217; 111 N.R. 185, refd to. [para. 21, footnote 15].

R. v. Evans (C.D.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 653; 158 N.R. 278; 145 A.R. 81; 55 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 26, footnote 20].

Coca-Cola Ltd. et al. v. Pardhan et al. (1997), 134 F.T.R. 122; 75 C.P.R.(3d) 318 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 27, footnote 21].

Beloit Canada Ltd. v. Valmet Oy (1988), 82 N.R. 235; 20 C.P.R.(3d) 1 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 155, footnote 153].

Marengo v. Daily Sketch and Sunday Graphic Inc., [1948] 1 All E.R. 406; 65 R.P.C. 242 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 155, footnote 154].

R. v. Côté, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 8; 13 N.R. 271, refd to. [para 157, footnote 155].

R. v. Rooke and De Vries, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1020; 108 N.R. 234; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 220, refd to. [para. 156, footnote 155].

R. v. Saunders - see R. v. Rooke and De Vries.

Titan Linkabit v. S.E.E. See Electronic Engineering Inc. (1993), 62 F.T.R. 241 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 156, footnote 155].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sopinka, J., Lederman, S.N., and Bryant, A.W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (1999), pp. 286 to 290 [para. 26, foot­note 20].

Counsel:

Christopher J. Pibus, James Buchan and Mark Galvin, for the plaintiffs;

David Seed, for the defendants.

Solicitors of Record:

Gowling Strathy & Henderson, Toronto, Ontario, for the plaintiffs;

Muir, Seed & Short, Burlington, Ontario, for the defendants.

This contempt of court hearing was heard on April 28, 29 and 30, 1999, in Toronto, Ontario, by Lufty, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, who delivered the following reasons on November 16, 1999.