| Citation: |
Vinod Chopra Films Private Limited v. John Doe, 2010 FC 387, [2010] 2 F.C.R. D-10 |
T-91-10 |
Practice
Discovery
Anton Piller Orders
Review of “rolling” Anton Piller Order (APO), defined as APO issued against John Doe and Jane Doe because defendants are unknown, as discussed in Club Monaco Inc. v. Woody World Discounts (1999), 2 C.P.R. (4th) 436 (F.C.T.D.)—Principal authority concerning APO is Supreme Court of Canada’s (S.C.C.) decision in Celanese Canada Inc. v. Murray Demolition Corp., 2006 SCC 36, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 189—However, present instance first time “rolling” APO has been fully litigated, or where sufficiently rigorous arguments have been raised by defendant—Whether plaintiff’s needs have been balanced against concerns of defendant, public—Whether due regard has been given to Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, being Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B, Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.), s. 8—When reviewing APO, four criteria from S.C.C.’s decision in Celanese must be met—In addition, since case at bar dealing with “rolling” APO, review must also consider criteria set out in Club Monaco—Successfully obtaining important evidence after search, in and of itself, not demonstrating likelihood evidence would have been destroyed—Plaintiff presenting very little evidence indicating any risks of very serious actual or potential damages, also not demonstrating any likelihood of defendants hiding or destroying evidence—Since several potential defendants, who were sent written notices regarding issue, were known to plaintiff before instituting action or seeking initial APO, “rolling” APO unfounded, inappropriate—Finally, given manner in which order obtained, including careless, misleading evidence, awarding defendants reasonable costs on full indemnity basis appropriate—Action dismissed.
Vinod Chopra Films Private Limited v. John Doe (T-91-10, 2010 FC 387, Hughes J., order dated April 12, 2010, 30 pp.)