Date: 20040920

Docket: A-414-03

Citation: 2004 FCA 308

CORAM:       DÉCARY J.A.

NOËL J.A.

PELLETIER J.A.

BETWEEN:

OSMOSE PENTOX INC.

Appellant

and

SOCIÉTÉ LAURENTIDE INC.

Respondent

Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on September 20, 2004.

Judgment rendered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on September 20, 2004.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:                                                    PELLETIER J.A.

Date: 20040920

Docket: A-414-03

Citation: 2004 FCA 308

CORAM:       DÉCARY J.A.

NOËL J.A.

PELLETIER J.A.

BETWEEN:

OSMOSE PENTOX INC.

Appellant

and

SOCIÉTÉ LAURENTIDE INC.

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on September 20, 2004)

PELLETIER J.A.

[1]       We all consider that there is no basis for intervention in the case at bar.

[2]         We agree with the appellant's arguments that the documents relating to the question of the calculation of profits should be released, but the starting point of any investigation should be the respondent's affidavit of documents. The amended affidavit of documents of André Buisson on July 10, 2003, is the only evidence which is in the personal knowledge of the deponent and establishes the existence of documents "in the possession, power or control" of the respondent. The accountant's affidavit on which the appellant relied is absolutely no proof the existence of the documents it mentions. On this point, the affidavit of documents is conclusive (see Privest Properties Ltd. v. WR Grace & Co Conn (No 2), [1992] B.C.J. No. 2731).

[3]         If it appears during the examination that other documents exist and are relevant to the points at issue, those documents are covered by the duty of disclosure just as much as those already disclosed. Such belated release opens the way to a supplementary examination.

[4]         From this standpoint, neither the prothonotary nor the motions judge made any error in dismissing the appellant's motions. The question is not one which is vital to the final issue of the case; and although the question of relevance is a question of law, it arises on the basis of documents which exist. The fact that documents would be relevant does not mean they exist.

[5]         In the case at bar, there was neither an abuse of discretion nor any unjustified failure to consider the evidence, and accordingly there is no basis for intervention.

[6]         For these reasons, the appeal will be dismissed with costs.

Certified true translation

Jacques Deschênes, LLB

                                                  FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

                                                      SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                                                   A-414-03

(APPEAL FROM ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 15, 2003, FEDERAL COURT DOCKET No. T-697-02)

STYLE OF CAUSE:                           OSMOSE PENTOX INC.

                                                                                                                                             Appellant

and

SOCIÉTÉ LAURENTIDE INC.

                                                                                                                                          Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:                                 Montréal, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING:                                  September 20, 2004

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT                     (DÉCARY, NOËL AND PELLETIER JJ.A.)

OF THE COURT:

DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY:    PELLETIER J.A.

APPEARANCES:

Claudette Dagenais                                           FOR THE APPELLANT

Patrick Goudreau                                              FOR THE RESPONDENT

Kevin O'Brien

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Dagenais & associés                                          FOR THE APPELLANT

Montréal, Quebec

Dunton, Rainville                                                FOR THE RESPONDENT

Montréal, Quebec