Titan Sports Inc. et al. v. Mansion House (Toronto) Ltd. et al., (1989) 31 F.T.R. 25 (TD)

• Judge: MacKay, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: August 25, 1989
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1989), 31 F.T.R. 25 (TD)

Titan Sports Inc. v. Mansion House Ltd. (1989), 31 F.T.R. 25 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Titan Sports Inc. and Titan Promotions (Canada) Inc. (applicants) v. Mansion House (Toronto) Limited carrying on business as Cabaret East, 445204 Ontario Limited, carrying on business as Queensbury Arms Tavern, Tempworld Limited, carrying on business as Chez Paree II, 558560 Ontario Limited, carrying on business as Chez Paree II, Place de Royale, Zack's Emporium & Eatery, Scoozi's in the New Yorkdale Inn, Caddy's, O'Tooles Roadhouse Restaurants, 620712 Ontario Inc., carrying on business as Alexander's Tavern, 710639 Ontario Inc., carrying on business as Alexander's Tavern, Wizards, Flamingo Road Cabaret Inc., John Doe, Jane Doe, and other Persons who are not authorized by the applicants and who intend to perform or exhibit the wrestling match known as "Summerslam" (respondents)

(T-1758-89)

Indexed As: Titan Sports Inc. et al. v. Mansion House (Toronto) Ltd. et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

MacKay, J.

September 6, 1989.

Summary:

Titan was involved in promoting, producing and distributing professional wrestling exhibitions. Titan granted certain parties the right to telecast a closed circuit broadcast of a particular wrestling event. Titan applied for an interim injunction to stop the named respondents from displaying the program at unauthorized venues. Further, Titan applied for an "Anton Piller" order requiring, inter alia, the respondents to deliver up the descrambling devices used to obtain Titan's telecast.

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

Practice - Topic 3379.1

Interim proceedings - Preservation of property - Anton Piller order - Conditions precedent - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, set out a three fold test for an "Anton Piller" order - See paragraph 15.

Practice - Topic 3379.2

Interim proceedings - Preservation of property - Anton Piller order - When available - Titan granted certain persons exclusive rights to show a closed circuit telecast of a wrestling event - Titan applied for an interim injunction to stop numerous respondents from showing the event at unauthorized venues and sought an Anton Piller order - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, granted the injunction and the Anton Piller order - The order allowed Titan to enter the respondents' premises to get the equipment used in the unauthorized telecasts, required the respondents to give complete details of how they obtained the descrambling devices and required the respondents not to talk to anyone else but their solicitors about the order for a time following service so as not to hinder Titan's attempts to obtain all unauthorized devices.

Cases Noticed:

American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., [1975] 1 All E.R. 504, refd to. [para. 13].

Turbo Resources Limited v. Petro Canada Inc. (1989), 91 N.R. 341 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Universal City Studios v. Zellers (1983), 73 C.P.R.(2d) 1 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 13].

Anton Piller v. Manufacturing Process Ltd., [1976] 1 Ch. 55, refd to. [paras. 15, 18].

Nintendo of America Inc. v. Coinex Video Games Inc. (1982), 46 N.R. 311; 69 C.P.R.(2d) 122 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Culinar Foods Inc. v. Mario's Food Products Ltée et al. (1986), 9 F.T.R. 182; 12 C.P.R.(3d) 420 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 18].

Chin-Can Communication Corporation v. Chinese Video Centre (1983), 70 C.P.R.(2d) 184, refd to. [para. 19].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ough, The Mareva Injunction and Anton Piller Order (1987), pp. 120 et seq. [paras. 20, 24].

Counsel:

Gordon J. Zimmerman and Gayle Pinheiro, for the applicants.

Solicitors of Record:

Borden & Elliot, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicants.

This application was heard in Ottawa, Ontario, on August 25, 1989, before MacKay, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on September 6, 1989: