4 total
Order varied to compel applicant to answer cross-examination questions following resolution of related objection.
The respondent brought a motion under the Federal Courts Rules to reconsider or vary an earlier order that had declined to rule on the admissibility of certain cross-examination questions due to a pending objection in a related proceeding.
Following a decision in the related proceeding resolving the objection, the respondent sought to compel the applicant to answer the questions.
The Federal Court held that the related decision constituted a new matter discovered subsequent to the making of the order under Rule 399(2)(a), and varied the order to require the applicant to answer the questions.
Judgment granted for unpaid commissions; email from collections specialist constituted acknowledgment of debt under Limitations Act.
The plaintiff brought an action for unpaid commissions owed by the defendant for the sale of medical equipment in India and Nepal.
The defendant raised three defences: that part of the claim was statute-barred, that it was entitled to a set-off for breach of contract, and that paying the debt risked prosecution under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act due to unproven charges in India.
The court rejected all defences, finding that the defendant had acknowledged the debt via email, that no liquidated sums were owed for a set-off, and that the foreign criminal charges were irrelevant.
Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the full amount claimed.
Motion granted in part compelling answers on cross-examination regarding history of language complaints and settlements.
The respondent in an Official Languages Act application brought a motion to compel the applicant to answer questions refused on cross-examination.
The respondent sought information about the applicant's history of filing numerous language complaints and the financial settlements obtained, arguing it was relevant to whether an award of damages would be an appropriate and just remedy.
The Federal Court granted the motion in part, ordering the applicant to answer certain questions related to his history of complaints and the annual total of monetary sums received or to be received in settlements for language rights violations, finding this information relevant to the assessment of damages.
Costs of a dismissed procedural motion fixed at $5,000 on a partial indemnity scale.
The defendants brought a motion for an order that the same judge hear the third party proceeding as the main action, which was dismissed.
The third party sought costs of the motion.
The court found that costs should follow the event but that the $14,000 claimed was disproportionate for a procedural motion that could have been resolved at a case conference.
Costs were fixed at $5,000 on a partial indemnity scale.
