Case information
Conduct a refined search of the Supreme Court of Canada database to obtain details on the status of a matter before the Court.
30188
Pharmascience Inc., et al. v. Jocelyn Binet, et al.
(Quebec) (Civil) (By Leave)
Docket
Judgments on applications for leave to appeal are rendered by the Court, but are not necessarily unanimous.
| Date | Proceeding | Filed By (if applicable) |
|---|---|---|
| 2004-09-01 | Close file on Leave | |
| 2004-08-31 | Certificate of taxation issued to, Noel & Ass. (2) | |
| 2004-08-31 | Decision on the bill of costs, taxed at the amount of $3,847.39 re: J. Binet) | |
| 2004-08-31 | Decision on the bill of costs, taxed at the amount of $1,663.40 (re: A. . Québec) | |
| 2004-06-23 | Bill of costs, Completed on: 2004-06-23 | Attorney General of Quebec |
| 2004-06-04 | Bill of costs, Completed on: 2004-06-04 | Jocelyn Binet |
| 2004-05-21 | Judgment on leave sent to the parties | |
| 2004-05-20 |
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 (Montreal), Number 500-09-013835-038, dated February 6, 2004, is dismissed with costs. Dismissed, with costs |
|
| 2004-05-20 |
Decision on motion to adduce new evidence, Ba LeB De, The motion to adduce new evidence is dismissed with costs. Dismissed, with costs |
|
| 2004-05-10 | Submission of motion to adduce new evidence, Ba LeB De | |
| 2004-05-05 | Reply to motion to adduce new evidence, (bookform), Completed on: 2004-05-05 | Pharmascience Inc. |
| 2004-05-03 | Correspondence (sent by the Court) to, all parties re: Rule 75 (documents returned) | |
| 2004-05-03 | Submission of miscellaneous motion, Reg | |
| 2004-04-28 | Correspondence received from, Philippe Frère dated 04/28/04 re: nothing to add to his response futher to the amended motion (sent to the judges 05/10/04) | Jocelyn Binet |
| 2004-04-28 | Motion to adduce new evidence, AMENDED (bookform), Incomplete | Pharmascience Inc. |
| 2004-04-28 | Response to the motion to adduce new evidence, (bookform), Completed on: 2004-04-28 | Jocelyn Binet |
| 2004-04-28 | Reply to miscellaneous motion, (Letter Form), from Guy Du Pont dated 04/28/04 (to the A.G. of Québec's response), Completed on: 2004-04-28 | Pharmascience Inc. |
| 2004-04-27 | Reply to miscellaneous motion, AMENDED to Jocelyn Binet's response (bookform), Completed on: 2004-04-28 | Pharmascience Inc. |
| 2004-04-27 | Response to miscellaneous motion, (Letter Form), from Benoît Belleau dated 04/27/04, Completed on: 2004-04-27 | Attorney General of Quebec |
| 2004-04-26 | Correspondence received from, Guy Du Pont dated 04/26/04 re: reconsideration of Justice Arbour's decision of 03/17/04 | Pharmascience Inc. |
| 2004-04-23 | Reply to miscellaneous motion, to Jocelyn Binet's response (bookform)(see amended reply filed 04/27/04), Completed on: 2004-04-28 | Pharmascience Inc. |
| 2004-04-23 | Response to miscellaneous motion, (bookform), Completed on: 2004-04-23 | Jocelyn Binet |
| 2004-04-22 | Motion to adduce new evidence, (bookform)(see amended motion filed 04/28/04), Completed on: 2004-04-26 | Pharmascience Inc. |
| 2004-04-22 | Correspondence received from, Guy Du Pont dated 04/22/04 re: motion to adduce new evidence will be filed | Pharmascience Inc. |
| 2004-04-21 | Notice of miscellaneous motion, for reconsideration of the decision of Arbour J. of 03/17/04 and for a stay of execution for Mr. Goodman only (bookform), Completed on: 2004-04-23 | Pharmascience Inc. |
| 2004-04-13 | All materials on application for leave submitted to the Judges, Ba LeB De | |
| 2004-04-05 | Applicant's reply to respondent's argument, Completed on: 2004-04-05 | Pharmascience Inc. |
| 2004-03-25 | Respondent's response on the application for leave to appeal, Completed on: 2004-03-25 | Attorney General of Quebec |
| 2004-03-24 | Respondent's response on the application for leave to appeal, Completed on: 2004-03-24 | Jocelyn Binet |
| 2004-03-17 | Order issued on motion for a stay of execution, (BY ARBOUR J.) | |
| 2004-03-17 |
Decision on the motion for a stay of execution, Arb, A motion for a stay of the judgment of the Court of Appeal has already been dismissed by Forget JA of that Court. Absent special circumstances, this Court will not enter-entertain a successive motion for a stay. In Esmail v. Petro-Canada, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 3. a motion was brought under s. 65.1 before this Court after Weiler J.A. of the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed one which had been brought before him. Sopinka J. held that absent "special circumstances", a person whose request for a stay under s. 65.1 had been denied by a judge of the Court of Appeal could not make a second or "successive" application before this Court (at para. 2): In enacting s. 65.1(1) to give judges of the court appealed from jurisdiction to grant a stay, Parliament did not intend that successive applications be routinely permitted. The purpose of the amendment was to enable litigants to apply to the court that had recently dealt with the matter. Often the court appealed from is more conveniently located so as to permit the matter to be dealt with more expeditiously. It is only in special circumstances that successive applications to a judge of the court appealed from and a judge of this Court should be permitted. [Emphasis added.] Forget JA questioned whether as a single judge of the Court of Appeal, he had jurisdiction to enter a stay, the effect of which would be to decide, albeit on a temporary basis, the opposite of what a full panel of the Court had decided. In any event, he would have denied the stay on the merit. Assuming that the doubts expressed by Forget JA as to his competence amount to the kinds of special circumstances that would justify this Court entertaining the same motion afresh, I am of the view that the Applicants have not made a case for a stay. In RJR — MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311, this Court held that in order for a stay to be granted under s. 65.1 of the Supreme Court Act, it must be shown (1) that there is a "serious question to be tried", (2) that irreparable harm will result if the relief is not granted and (3) that the balance of inconvenience favours the person seeking relief. The Applicants have not shown they would suffer "irreparable harm" if the defendant is allowed to proceed with disciplinary proceedings against them and thus force them to produce the documents in issue. I would therefore dismiss the motion for a stay, with costs. Dismissed, with costs |
|
| 2004-03-15 | Submission of motion for a stay of execution, Arb | |
| 2004-03-15 | Correspondence received from, G. Du Pont dated March 2, 2004 re: A.G. Quebec is respondent in this proceedings | Pharmascience Inc. |
| 2004-03-12 | Reply to motion for a stay of execution, (by fax - original rec'd March 15/04 / 6 copies book form), Completed on: 2004-03-25 | Pharmascience Inc. |
| 2004-03-08 | Response to the motion for a stay of execution, Completed on: 2004-03-08 | Jocelyn Binet |
| 2004-03-08 | Response to the motion for a stay of execution, (bookform), Completed on: 2004-03-08 | Attorney General of Quebec |
| 2004-03-08 | Letter acknowledging receipt of a complete application for leave to appeal | |
| 2004-03-03 | Correspondence received from, by fax, A.G. of Quebec is resp.; new covers will be sent. | Pharmascience Inc. |
| 2004-02-26 | Application for leave to appeal, Completed on: 2004-03-08 | Pharmascience Inc. |
| 2004-02-26 | Motion for a stay of execution, 6 copies (bookform), Completed on: 2004-02-26 | Pharmascience Inc. |
Parties
Please note that in the case of closed files, the “Status” column reflects the status of the parties at the time of the proceedings. For more information about the proceedings and about the dates when the file was open, please consult the docket of the case in question.
Main parties
| Name | Role | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmascience Inc. | Applicant | Active |
| Goodman, Morris S. | Applicant | Active |
v.
| Name | Role | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Binet, Jocelyn | Respondent | Active |
| Attorney General of Quebec | Respondent | Active |
Counsel
Party: Pharmascience Inc.
Counsel
26e étage
1501, avenue McGill College
Montréal, Quebec
H3A 3N9
Telephone: (514) 841-6406
FAX: (514) 841-6499
Email: gdupont@dwpv.com
Party: Goodman, Morris S.
Counsel
26e étage
1501, avenue McGill College
Montréal, Quebec
H3A 3N9
Telephone: (514) 841-6406
FAX: (514) 841-6499
Email: gdupont@dwpv.com
Party: Binet, Jocelyn
Counsel
1, Place Ville-Marie
40e étage
Montréal, Quebec
H3B 4M4
Telephone: (514) 871-1522
FAX: (514) 871-8977
Email: pfrere@lavery.ca
Agent
111 Rue Champlain
Hull, Quebec
J8X 3R1
Telephone: (819) 771-7393
FAX: (819) 771-5397
Party: Attorney General of Quebec
Counsel
Pierre Arguin
8.01 - 1 rue Notre-Dame est
Montréal, Quebec
H2Y 1B6
Telephone: (514) 393-2336
FAX: (514) 873-7074
Agent
111 Rue Champlain
Hull, Quebec
J8X 3R1
Telephone: (819) 771-7393
FAX: (819) 771-5397
Summary
Keywords
None.
Summary
Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.
None.
Lower court rulings
Superior Court of Quebec
500-17-017508-030
Requête des demandeurs pour faire surseoir à l'exécution d'une demande de production de documents rejetée
Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montréal)
500-09-013835-038
Appel rejeté
Memorandums of argument on application for leave to appeal
The memorandums of argument on an application for leave to appeal will be posted here 30 days after leave to appeal has been granted unless they contain personal information, information that is subject to a publication ban, or any other information that is not part of the public record. You may also obtain copies of the memorandum by filing out the Request for Court records form or by contacting the Court’s Records Centre either by email at records-dossiers@scc-csc.ca or by telephone at 613‑996‑7933 or at 1‑888‑551‑1185.
If you have questions about a memorandum of argument or want to use a memorandum of argument, please contact the author of the memorandum of argument directly. Their name appears at the end of the memorandum of argument. The contact information for counsel is found in the “Counsel” tab of this page.
Downloadable PDFs
Not available
Related links
Factums on appeal
The factums of the appellant, the respondent and the intervener will be posted here at least 2 weeks before the hearing unless they contain personal information, information that is subject to a publication ban, or any other information that is not part of the public record. You may also obtain copies of factums by filling out the Request for Court records form or by contacting the Court’s Records Centre either by email at records-dossiers@scc-csc.ca or by telephone at 613‑996‑7933 or at 1‑888‑551‑1185.
If you have questions about a factum or want permission to use a factum, please contact the author of the factum directly. Their contact information appears on the first page of each factum.
Downloadable PDFs
Not available