Ronald A. Weinberg, et al. v. Claude Robinson, et al.
(Quebec) (Civil) (By Leave)
Judgments on applications for leave to appeal are rendered by the Court, but are not necessarily unanimous.
|2015-02-02||Certificate of taxation issued to, Guy Régimbald|
|2015-02-02||Decision on the bill of costs, (SEE FILE FOR REASONS ON TAXATION - JOINT WITH 34466-34468-34469), in the amount of $8,857.13, DeRg|
|2015-02-02||Submission of the bill of costs, DeRg|
|2014-01-31||Bill of costs, Completed on: 2014-01-31||Claude Robinson|
|2013-12-24||Formal judgment sent to the registrar of the court of appeal and all parties|
|2013-12-24||Judgment on appeal and notice of deposit of judgment sent to all parties|
|2013-12-23||Judgment on the appeal rendered, CJ LeB F Abe Ro Cro Mo, The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montréal), Numbers 500-09-020014-098, 500-09-020033-098, 500-09-020034-096, 500-09-020035-093, 2011 QCCA 1361, dated July 20, 2011, heard on February 13, 2013, is dismissed with costs throughout as specified in the judgment in file 34469.
Dismissed, with costs
|2013-02-28||Transcript received, (187 pages)|
|2013-02-13||Judgment reserved OR rendered with reasons to follow|
|2013-02-13||Intervener's condensed book, Joint with 34466-34468-34469 - Submitted in Court (14 copies)||Music Canada|
|2013-02-13||Respondent's condensed book, Joint with 34466-34468 - Submitted in Court (14 copies)||Claude Robinson|
|2013-02-13||Appellant's condensed book, Submitted in Court (14 copies)||Ronald A. Weinberg|
|2013-02-13||Acknowledgement and consent for video taping of proceedings, From all parties|
|2013-02-13||Hearing of the appeal, 2013-02-13, CJ LeB F Abe Ro Cro Mo
|2013-02-08||Correspondence received from, Dimitri Maniatis dated February 8, 2013. Re: Error in footnote 10 in appellant's factum||Ronald A. Weinberg|
|2013-02-05||Order by, (joint with 34466-68-69), F, FURTHER TO THE ORDER dated November 16, 2012, granting leave to intervene to Music Canada for leave to intervene in the above appeal;
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the said intervener is granted permission to present oral argument not exceeding ten (10) minutes at the hearing of the appeal
|2013-01-29||Intervener's book of authorities, Joint with 34466, 34468 & 34469 (5 volumes), Completed on: 2013-01-29||Music Canada|
|2013-01-29||Intervener's factum, Joint with 34466, 34468 & 34469, Completed on: 2013-01-29||Music Canada|
|2013-01-21||Notice of appearance, Dimitri Maniatis, Raynold Langlois and Jean-Patrick Dallaire will be present at the hearing.||Ronald A. Weinberg|
|2013-01-04||Correspondence received from, Guy Régimbald, re: letter in response to Me Dussault: appellants leave it up to the Court to establish time for pleadings for file 34469, letter received by fax, dated Jan. 4/13||Claude Robinson|
|2013-01-02||Correspondence received from, Alain Y. Dussault, re: respondents require more time during the hearing of appeal 34669, received by fax, letter dated Dec. 21/12||Christophe Izard|
|2012-12-18||Correspondence received from, Pierre Y. Lefebvre, re: Response to letter from Guy Régimbald dated Dec. 13/12.||Christophe Izard|
|2012-12-17||Notice of hearing sent to parties|
|2012-12-13||Correspondence received from, Guy Régimbald, re: requesting to hear 34469 as a distinct appeal||Claude Robinson|
|2012-12-13||General proceeding, Form 25C||Ronald A. Weinberg|
|2012-11-22||Appeal hearing scheduled, 2013-02-13
|2012-11-20||Appeal perfected for hearing|
|2012-11-16||Order on motion for leave to intervene, (by FISH J.)|
|2012-11-16||Decision on the motion for leave to intervene, F, (joint with 34466-68-69) UPON APPLICATION by Music Canada for leave to intervene in the above appeal;
AND THE MATERIAL FILED having been read;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The motion for leave to intervene of Music Canada is granted and the said intervener shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length on or before January 29, 2013.
The request to present oral argument is deferred to a date following receipt and consideration of the written arguments of the parties and the intervener.
The intervener is not entitled to raise new issues or to adduce further evidence or otherwise to supplement the record of the parties.
Pursuant to Rule 59(1)(a) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, the intervener shall pay to the appellants and respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellants and respondents by its intervention
|2012-11-16||Submission of motion for leave to intervene, F|
|2012-11-09||Respondent's book of authorities, (Book Form), Vol. 1 to 6 joint with 34466 and 34468, Completed on: 2012-11-22||Claude Robinson|
|2012-11-09||Respondent's factum, (Book Form), Form and word version rec'd Nov. 21/12, Completed on: 2012-11-22||Claude Robinson|
|2012-10-24||Response to the motion for leave to intervene, (Letter Form), (joint with 34466, 34468 and 344689) from Pierre Landry dated October 24/12 re: take no position, Completed on: 2012-10-24||Ronald A. Weinberg|
|2012-10-23||Response to the motion for leave to intervene, (Letter Form), (joint with 34466 and 34469) from Nadia Effendi dated October 23/12 re: takes no position, Completed on: 2012-10-23||Christian Davin|
|2012-10-22||Response to the motion for leave to intervene, (joint with 34467, 34468 and 34469) email from Ed Van Bemmel dated October 22/12 re: takes no position, Completed on: 2012-10-22||Claude Robinson|
|2012-10-22||Response to the motion for leave to intervene, (Letter Form), (joint with 34466, 34468 and 34469) from Jeffrey Beedell dated October 22/12 re: takes no position, Completed on: 2012-10-22||Cinar Corporation|
|2012-10-12||Motion for leave to intervene, (Book Form), (joint with 34466, 34468 and 34469), Completed on: 2012-10-24||Music Canada|
|2012-09-14||Supplemental document, Joint with 34466 & 34468 (Supplemental record), Completed on: 2012-09-14||Ronald A. Weinberg|
|2012-09-14||Appellant's book of authorities, Joint with 34466 & 34468 (6 volumes), Completed on: 2012-09-14||Ronald A. Weinberg|
|2012-09-14||Appellant's record, Joint with 34466 & 34468 (49 volumes + Index) Also included is a USB key containing video and audio exhibits (11 copies), Completed on: 2012-09-14||Ronald A. Weinberg|
|2012-09-14||Appellant's factum, Completed on: 2012-09-14||Ronald A. Weinberg|
|2012-06-22||Notice of appeal, Completed on: 2012-06-22||Ronald A. Weinberg|
|2012-05-25||Letter advising the parties of tentative hearing date and filing deadlines (Leave granted)|
|2012-05-25||Copy of formal judgment sent to Registrar of the Court of Appeal and all parties|
|2012-05-25||Judgment on leave sent to the parties|
|2012-05-24||Judgment of the Court on the application for leave to appeal, The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montréal), Numbers 500-09-020014-098, 500-09-020033-098, 500-09-020034-096 and 500-09-020035-093, 2011 QCCA 1361, dated July 20, 2011, is granted with costs in the cause. This appeal will be heard with Cinar Corporation, et al. v. Claude Robinson, et al. (34466), Christophe Izard, et al. v. Claude Robinson, et al. (34468) and Claude Robinson, et al. v. France Animation S.A., et al. (34469).
Granted, with costs in the cause
|2012-05-24||Order on miscellaneous motion, (By LeBel, Fish and Karakatsanis JJ.)|
|2012-05-24||Decision on the miscellaneous motion, LeB F Ka,  The respondents, Claude Robinson and Les Productions Nilem Inc., are asking this Court to order the applicants to provide security in the amount of $3,250,000 for the amounts they would have to pay should their appeals to this Court be unsuccessful. According to the respondents, this motion is made under s. 60(1)(b) of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S 26, and Rule 47 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, SOR/2002 156. The motion was filed at the very end of the leave to appeal process, after the Court had given notice that it was about to rule on the parties’ applications for leave to appeal.
 The respondents obtained a judgment from the Superior Court ( R.J.Q. 2261) ordering the applicants to pay them damages in respect of an infringement of copyright. The Quebec Court of Appeal upheld that judgment in part ( R.J.Q. 1415). After the Court of Appeal’s judgment, the applicants applied to a Court of Appeal judge under art. 522.1 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q., c. C 25 (“C.C.P.”), and s. 65.1 of the Supreme Court Act to stay the execution of the judgment pending consideration of their applications for leave to appeal and, should leave be granted, pending a decision on the appeals.
 Fournier J.A. granted the stay applications in part (2011 QCCA 2305 (CanLII)), but imposed certain conditions for the stays, including the deposit of partial security for the payment of the capital, interest and costs that the applicants would have to pay should their appeals to the Supreme Court be unsuccessful. He dismissed the stay application in respect of Mr. Weinberg after concluding that it would be pointless to order Mr. Weinberg to provide security, since he did not appear to have any assets. Fournier J.A. ordered the applicants Cinar Corporation and Les Films Cinar Inc. (“Cinar”) to deposit a bank letter of credit for $750,000. He also ordered the applicants Ravensburger Film + TV GmbH, RTV Family Entertainment AG, France Animation S.A. and Christophe Izard to deposit a letter of credit for $2,500,000 or an equivalent irrevocable undertaking from their insurer as a condition of the stay. Cinar deposited its letter of credit. Counsel for Ravensburger Film + TV GmbH, RTV Family Entertainment AG, France Animation S.A. and Christophe Izard informed counsel for the respondents that their clients would not be providing the letter of credit they had been ordered to deposit. As a result, the Court of Appeal’s judgment remains enforceable against them until this Court rules on the parties’ appeals.
 We will not grant the requested order for security. Although we do not mean to say that it would be impossible to order security — whether the deposit of a bond or any other form of security — in excess of $500, it appears that this Court has never granted such security as a condition for bringing an appeal under s. 60(1)(b) of the Supreme Court Act, which has traditionally been applied so as to require the deposit of only a symbolic amount of $500 in respect of the costs of the appeal (Lanificio Fratelli Bettazzi S.N.C. v. Tissus Ranchar Inc., September 6, 1990, No. 21373, per Cory J.; see H. S. Brown, Supreme Court of Canada Practice 2012 (2011), 12th ed., at pp. 134 36). The type of security the respondents are seeking has usually been granted as a condition for a stay of proceedings or a stay of execution under s. 65 or 65.1 of the Supreme Court Act or under a statutory provision such as art. 522.1 C.C.P.
 In the instant case, the conditions for the requested stays were laid down in Fournier J.A.’s decision. That judgment will continue to apply for the duration of the appeals for which leave is being granted in judgments rendered this same day by this Court and filed together with our decision on the respondents’ motion. This motion by the respondents, whose application for leave to appeal is also being granted, amounts for all intents and purposes to an attempt to review the judgment of Fournier J.A.
 It should be added that it would be difficult to reconcile security such as this with the requirements underlying proper access to the Supreme Court. Section 40 of the Supreme Court Act provides that an application for leave to appeal is to be decided on the basis of the importance of the case. Moreover, the procedure for granting leave to appeal is in itself a sufficient deterrent against frivolous or dilatory appeals.
 For these reasons, the respondents’ motion is dismissed without costs
Dismissed, without costs
|2012-04-17||Submission of miscellaneous motion, for an order for a security deposit (joint with 34466-68), LeB F Ka|
|2012-04-16||Order on miscellaneous motion, re Rule 32(2) (joint with 34466-468)|
|2012-04-16||Decision on the miscellaneous motion, Reg, pursuant to Rule 32(2) for an order that the motion for a security deposit filed March 20/12 be submitted to the leave panel
|2012-04-16||Submission of miscellaneous motion, pursuant to rule 32(2), Reg|
|2012-04-12||Response to miscellaneous motion, (Letter Form), from Dimiti Maniatis dated Apr. 12/12 [pursuant to rule 32(2)], Completed on: 2012-04-12||Ronald A. Weinberg|
|2012-04-04||Notice of miscellaneous motion, pursuant to Rule 32(2), on behalf of the respondents, for an order that the motion for a security deposit filed March 20/12 be submitted to the leave panel (joint with 34466-468), Completed on: 2012-04-04||Claude Robinson|
|2012-04-04||Reply to miscellaneous motion, (joint with 34466-468), Completed on: 2012-04-04||Claude Robinson|
|2012-03-30||Response to miscellaneous motion, Completed on: 2012-03-30||Ronald A. Weinberg|
|2012-03-22||Correspondence received from, Pierre Landry re: Ottawa agent||Ronald A. Weinberg|
|2012-03-21||Correspondence received from, Pierre Y. Lefebvre dated March 21/12 re will be filing a response to the motion within 10 days||Christophe Izard|
|2012-03-20||Notice of miscellaneous motion, for an order for a security deposit (bookform) (joint with 34466-68), Completed on: 2012-03-21||Claude Robinson|
|2012-02-20||All materials on application for leave submitted to the Judges, (revised from De F Ka) to, LeB F Ka|
|2011-11-10||Applicant's reply to respondent's argument, Completed on: 2011-11-10||Ronald A. Weinberg|
|2011-11-03||Correspondence received from, Gowlings, Form 25B||Productions Nilem Inc.|
|2011-10-28||Respondent's response on the application for leave to appeal, Service to come (rec'd Oct.31/11), Completed on: 2011-10-31||Claude Robinson|
|2011-10-04||Letter acknowledging receipt of a complete application for leave to appeal|
|2011-09-29||Application for leave to appeal, (4 volumes) Service missing (rec'd Oct.4/11), Completed on: 2011-10-04||Ronald A. Weinberg|
|2011-09-22||Notice of application for leave to appeal, Completed on: 2011-09-22||Ronald A. Weinberg|
- Date modified: