Federal Courts Reports
Symbol of the Government of Canada

SEE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT PrintPrinter Friendly Page

PRACTICE

Parties

Joinder

Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Landmark Cinemas of Canada Ltd.

A-194-03

2004 FCA 57, Létourneau J.A.

5/2/03

13 pp.

Joinder--Appeal from Trial Division decision (T-633-92) dismissing appeal from Prothonotary's order granting motion made by Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN) to amend statement of claim in order to add new defendants--Motions Judge erred in concluding could not exercise Prothonotary's discretion de novo-- Whether amendments should have been allowed--As to SOCAN's 1992 election to bring action solely against defendant Landmark, legal doctrine of election requires person to make choice between two available mutually exclusive rights--Rights to sue Landmark and new defendants not mutually exclusive, as all defendants could be sued for infringing activities, either individually or jointly on account of joint liability--Legal doctrine of election has no application here-- Delay in suing new defendants could be pleaded as defence, would not justify refusing amendments if they are necessary in order that matters be effectively and completely determined by court--Appellants questioned manner in which Prothonotary proceeded when not satisfied with evidence-- Prothonotary offered parties possibility of adjournment, but parties declined and insisted matter proceed as it was-- Notwithstanding that, Prothonotary ordered adjournment of motion against will of parties--Unusual for judge or Prothonotary to, proprio motu, impose adjournment on parties wanting to proceed--Unusual to issue direction to that effect to moving party although power itself to issue directions not contested--Case management judges' or Prothonotaries' relative immunity from review not authorizing them to do what they want when they want--In terms of costs, efficiency and expeditiousness, better to add new defendants now than to force multiplicity of new proceedings--Adjournment understandable and in interest of justice--No error in exercise of Prothonotary's discretion--Appeal dismissed.