Gauvin Enterprises Ltd. v. Canada, (1992) 59 F.T.R. 19 (TD)

• Judge: Teitelbaum, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 30, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1992), 59 F.T.R. 19 (TD)

Gauvin Ent. Ltd. v. Can. (1992), 59 F.T.R. 19 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Gauvin Enterprises Ltd. (plaintiff) v. Her Majesty The Queen (defendant)

(T-2050-90)

Indexed As: Gauvin Enterprises Ltd. v. Canada

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Teitelbaum, J.

December 3, 1992.

Summary:

The plaintiff sued the defendant for dam­ages for wrong­ful termination of a contract and applied under Federal Court rule 341(b) for judgment for a security deposit which it submitted to the defen­dant.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, dismissed the application.

Practice - Topic 5703

Judgments and orders - Summary judg­ments - Conditions precedent - Federal Court rule 341(b) provided that a party could apply, at any stage of a proceeding and without waiting for determination of any other issues, for judgment respecting a matter, where the only evidence con­sisted of documents and such affidavits as were necessary to prove the execution or iden­tity of such documents - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that a motion under rule 341 was only appro­priate when the material facts were admitted, the result of the applica­tion of the law to the facts was not in doubt and the result was apparent.

Practice - Topic 5708

Judgments and orders - Summary judg­ments - Bar to plaintiff's application - Existence of issue to be tried - Federal Court rule 341(b) provided that a party could apply, at any stage of a proceeding and without waiting for determination of any other issues, for judgment respecting a matter, where the only evidence con­sisted of documents and such affidavits as were necessary to prove the execution or iden­tity of such documents - The plaintiff sued for wrong­ful termination of a contract and applied under rule 341(b) for judgment for a secu­rity deposit which it submitted to the defendant - The Fed­eral Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that s. 341 was inap­plicable, where there were issues of fact and an issue of interpretation of the con­tract which could only be resolved at trial.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Gary Bowl Ltd., [1974] 2 F.C. 146; 4 N.R. 172 (F.C.A.), folld. [para. 13].

Flexi-Coil Ltd. v. Bourgault (F.P.) In­dus­tries (1990), 36 F.T.R. 149 (T.D.), folld. [para. 16].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Rules, rule 341(b) [para. 6].

Rules of Court, Federal Court - see Fed­eral Court Rules.

Counsel:

William E. Knutson, for the plaintiff;

Alan D. Louie, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Shapiro, Hankinson & Knutson, Vancouver, B.C., for the plaintiff;

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the defendant.

This application was heard on November 30, 1992, at Vancouver, B.C., before Tei­tel­baum, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on December 3, 1992.