CITATION: Kennedy Electric Limited v. Dana Canada Corporation, 2007 ONCA 300
DATE: 20070206
DOCKET: M34675 (C45909) (C45915)
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
KENNEDY ELECTRIC LIMITED, R & A INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTORS LTD., EMPIRE TRANSPORT LIMITED, HYDRAMEN FLUID POWER LTD., CASSIDY INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTORS LTD., 1480253 ONTARIO, INC. C.O.B. AS DYNAMIC SYSTEMS, FASTENING HOUSE INC. (Respondents) Appellants in Appeal
-and- DANA CANADA CORPORATION and RUMBLE AUTOMATION INC. (Respondents) Respondents in Appeal
BEFORE:
O’CONNOR, ACJO
COUNSEL:
Gerry Fedchun
for the Moving Party/Intervenor, Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association
Michael A. van Bodegom for the Respondent/Appellant in Appeal, Cassidy Industrial Contractors Ltd.
Celeste Poltak for the Respondent/Appellant in Appeal, Kennedy Electric Limited
Christopher A. Chekan for the Respondent/Respondent in Appeal, Dana Canada Corporation
HEARD:
February 6th, 2007
E N D O R S E M E N T
[1] This is a motion brought by the Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association (APMA) seeking to intervene in this appeal as a party or as a friend of the court. APMA is a long-standing industry trade organization that represents its members' interests by way of education and information exchange and by way of governmental relations and lobbying.
[2] The issue that arises in this appeal requires interpretation of provisions of the Construction Lien Act to determine whether work done by the appellants qualified as an improvement to the respondent’s facility so as to attract the protection of that Act. The proposed intervenor does not purport to have developed any particular expertise that would assist the court in the analysis of this area of law.
[3] Its primary focus and contribution to the appeal would be to articulate the economic impact of the court's decision on the industry, which it represents. To that end it would seek to add to the record by providing evidence as to the economic realities of the industry from the parts manufacturers’ perspective. While it is common ground that the decision of this court will have an impact on the industry, both from the construction trades’ perspective and from the parts manufacturers’ perspective, that is not a basis in itself to permit intervention and expansion of the record.
[4] I am not satisfied that, given the nature of the evidence and argument of the proposed Intervenor, it will contribute to an understanding and determination of the issues under appeal. Accordingly, the motion is dismissed. Costs are fixed in the amount of $500, inclusive of GST and disbursements, in favour of each of the responding parties.
“D. O’Connor .A.C.J.O.”