Date: 20010309
Docket: T-1781-99
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 172
BETWEEN:
NOVELL, INC. and
NOVELL CANADA LTD.
Plaintiffs
- and -
JUDE BERNIER
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BLAIS J.
[1] This is a motion for contempt of court made by the plaintiffs against the defendant.
[2] The defendant agreed to a written examination for discovery but refused to answer a number of questions on March 7, 2000.
[3] The plaintiffs had to file a motion pursuant to Rule 369 to compel the defendant to answer the questions still outstanding.
[4] On June 21, 2000 the prothonotary Lafrenière rendered a decision directing the defendant Bernier to answer the questions outstanding by July 14, 2000 at the latest.
[5] The defendant did not comply with the order by the prothonotary Lafrenière. An initial motion in appeal from the prothonotary Lafrenière's decision was heard by Pinard J., who refused to hear the defendant because his motion was not in accordance with the Rules and gave the defendant a period of time in which to file a motion consistent with the Rules. A new motion was filed and on October 5, 2000 I rendered a decision myself dismissing the defendant's motion to appeal. Since that time, despite the fact that the plaintiffs have asked the defendant to give a reply to the outstanding questions, the defendant has refused and still refuses to answer the said questions.
[6] When questioned on oath in Court Mr. Bernier repeated his refusal to answer the questions and mentioned, first, that he did not regard the questions as relevant and the amount concerned was very small, and second, his personal safety might be at risk if he answered the questions.
[7] Rule 466 of the Federal Court Rules (1998) reads as follows:
| 466. Sous réserve de la règle 467, est coupable d'outrage au tribunal quiconque : a) étant présent à une audience de la Cour, ne se comporte pas avec respect, ne garde pas le silence ou manifeste son approbation ou sa désapprobation du déroulement de l'instance; |
466. Subject to rule 467, a person is guilty of contempt of Court who (a) at a hearing fails to maintain a respectful attitude, remain silent or refrain from showing approval or disapproval of the proceeding; |
|
| b) désobéit à un moyen de contrainte ou à une ordonnance de la Cour; c) agit de façon à entraver la bonne administration de la justice ou à porter atteinte à l'autorité ou à la dignité de la Cour; d) étant un fonctionnaire de la Cour, n'accomplit pas ses fonctions; e) étant un shérif ou un huissier, n'exécute pas immédiatement un bref ou ne dresse pas le procès-verbal d'exécution, ou enfreint une règle dont la violation le rend passible d'une peine. |
(b) disobeys a process or order of the Court; (c) acts in such a way as to interfere with the orderly administration of justice, or to impair the authority or dignity of the Court; (d) is an officer of the Court and fails to perform his or her duty; or (e) is a sheriff or bailiff and does not execute a writ forthwith or does not make a return thereof or, in executing it, infringes a rule the contravention of which renders the sheriff or bailiff liable to a penalty. |
|
[8] Rules 97, 98 and 100 of the Federal Court Rules (1998) read as follows:
| 97. Si une personne ne se présente pas à un interrogatoire oral ou si elle refuse de prêter serment, de répondre à une question légitime, de produire un document ou un élément matériel demandés ou de se conformer à une ordonnance rendue en application de la règle 96, la Court peut: |
97. Where a person fails to attend an oral examination or refuses to take an oath, answer a proper question, produce a document or other material required to be produced or comply with an order made under rule 96, the Court may |
|
| a) ordonner à cette personne de subir l'interrogatoire ou un nouvel interrogatoire oral, selon le cas, à ses frais; |
(a) order the person to attend or re-attend, as the case may be, at his or her own expense; |
|
| b) ordonner à cette personne de répondre à toute question à l'égard de laquelle une objection a été jugée injustifiée ainsi qu'à toute question légitime découlant de sa réponse; |
(b) order the person to answer a question that was improperly objected to and any proper question arising from the answer; |
|
| c) ordonner la radiation de tout ou partie de la preuve de cette personne, y compris ses affidavits; |
(c) strike all or part of the person's evidence, including an affidavit made by the person; |
|
| d) ordonner que l'instance soit rejetée ou rendre jugement par défaut, selon le cas; |
||
| (d) dismiss the proceeding or give judgment by default, as the case may be; or e) ordonner que la personne ou la partie au nom de laquelle la personne est interrogée paie les frais de l'interrogatoire oral. |
(e) order the person or the party on whose behalf the person is being examined to pay the costs of the examination. |
|
| 98. Quiconque ne se conforme pas à une ordonnance rendue en application des règles 96 ou 97 peut être reconnu coupable d'outrage au tribunal. |
98. A person who does not comply with an order made under rule 96 or 97 may be found in contempt. |
|
| 100. Les règles 94, 95, 97 et 98 s'appliquent à l'interrogatoire écrit, avec les adaptations nécessaires. |
100. Rules 94, 95, 97 and 98 apply to written examinations, with such modifications as are necessary. |
|
[9] The prothonotary Lafrenière directed Mr. Bernier to answer the questions appearing in Appendix C of the affidavit of Kevin Santorio, dated November 28, 2000.
[10] It seems clear from reading Rules 98 and 467 of the Federal Court Rules (1998) that a person who does not comply with an order made by the Court may be found in contempt. That is the purpose of the motion at bar.
[11] Mr. Bernier himself admitted in Court that he did not intend to comply with the prothonotary Lafrenière's order and would not alter his decision not to answer the questions which he was directed to answer.
[12] Mr. Bernier did not persuade the Court that his safety would be at risk if he answered the questions.
[13] I therefore find Jude Bernier in contempt.
[14] I asked the parties to make submissions on the penalty which the plaintiffs wished to have imposed on the defendant for being found in contempt.
[15] The plaintiffs suggested that a heavy fine, namely $10,000, be imposed and that if it was not paid there be a sentence of imprisonment corresponding to the fine imposed. The plaintiffs also claimed costs on a solicitor-client basis, in view of the circumstances and in particular the defendant's repeated failure to comply.
[16] The defendant simply responded that he had no money to pay and did not intend to pay, and had no further comment to make.
[17] Consequently, the Court directs the defendant to pay a fine of $2,500 within six months, plus costs and disbursements incurred.
[18] If the said fine and costs are not paid within the specified deadline, the defendant shall serve a term of three months' imprisonment.
Pierre Blais
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
March 9, 2001
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, trad. a., LL.L.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT No.: T-1781-99
STYLE OF CAUSE: NOVELL INC. et al. v. JUDE BERNIER
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 26, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: BLAIS J.
DATED: MARCH 9, 2001
APPEARANCES:
CHRIS PIBUS FOR THE PLAINTIFF
JUDE BERNIER FOR HIMSELF
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
GOWLING, LAFLEUR, HENDERSON FOR THE PLAINTIFF