Vermillion Networks Inc. v. Green Circle Ideas Inc., 2024 FC 1455
Justice Gagné - 2024-09-16
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
The Applicant, Vermillion Networks Inc., appeals a decision of Associate Judge, in her capacity of Case Management Judge, whereby she dismisses Vermillion’s Application for delay, as per Rule 167 of the Federal Courts Rules [see 2024 FC 579]. ... At the hearing, counsel for the Applicant admitted that the delay in bringing this proceeding forward is undue and that the First Undue Period and the Third Undue Period are inexcusable. Although I will pay special attention to the Second Undue Delay (the 39 months where the Rule 120 motion was pending), I am of the view that one cannot disregard the Applicant’s behaviour throughout the entire seven-year period; the Applicant’s vigilance in bringing this case forward, or lack thereof, has to be regarded holistically. ... I repeat, the fact that a motion was sent to the Court for disposition and no decision ensued is embarrassing. The Court acknowledges it. However, there would have been several actions that could have been taken by the Applicant to break the deadlock. ... Having considered all the evidence and arguments, the CMJ finds that it would undermine the very purpose of Rule 420(3)(b) to deprive the Respondent of a doubling of costs simply because it increased its final offer in an effort to conclude a settlement. I see no reviewable error in this finding, just as I see no error in the choice of a lump sum award in the circumstances of this proceeding.
Decision relates to:
- T-1484-21 - Vermillion Networks Inc. v. Essilor Group Canada Inc.
- T-533-19 - VERMILLION NETWORKS INC. v. CENOVUS ENERGY INC.
- T-609-17 - VERMILLION NETWORKS INC. v. GREEN CIRCLE IDEAS INC.