Remitbee Incorporated v. Remitly, Inc., 2025 FC 576
Justice Fuhrer - 2025-03-28
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
The Respondent Remitly, Inc. appeals the order consolidating these proceedings: 2024 FC 2028. ... Remitly submits, on this motion under rule 51 ... that the Consolidation Order improperly enables Remitbee to rehabilitate the subsection 56(5) evidence Remitbee filed in T-1758-22. ... Having considered the parties written materials and heard their oral submissions, I am not persuaded that the Associate Judge made any errors in law or any palpable and overriding errors warranting the Court’s interference with the Consolidation Order. ... The agreement is tantamount to consent, notwithstanding former counsel’s attempt to withdraw from it. Remitly’s argument that, notwithstanding the subsistence of the agreement, there no longer is consent and, therefore, rule 312 applies, is unsustainable, in my view. ... In my view, it was open to the Associate Judge to find the prejudice to Remitbee would be greater if Court File No. T-1758-21 could not proceed as a de novo review (i.e. without the benefit of the five additional affidavits). Further, any prejudice that Remitly asserts it will suffer can be addressed through costs, if it is the successful party. It is not prejudiced in the sense of not being able to take any additional steps.
Decision relates to:
- T-1758-22 - REMITBEE INCORPORATED v. REMITLY, INC.
- T-2621-23 - REMITBEE INCORPORATED v. REMITLY, INC.