Indian Manufacturing Ltd. v. Lo
A-288-96
Hugessen J.A.
6/6/96
8 pp.
Applications for directions under Rule 324-Rolling Anton Piller order issued June 5 and set aside by Reed J. for failure to follow certain procedures-Order appealed-Appellants seeking to amend notice of appeal by adding list of identified persons as respondents-As notice of appeal not yet served, no prejudice in allowing amendment-Amendment allowed-On issue of service of notice of appeal, service on most respondents in accordance with R. 311-Those respondents not having last known address or solicitor to be served by order under Rule 310(1)-Court ordering service by publication in newspapers in areas where served with Anton Piller orders-Appellants also seeking sealing of notice of appeal to prevent respondents from contacting one another and thus increasing ease of distributing infringing wares-Court finding premise on which application based false-List of defendants already part of public record in trial record-Stable door already open-More fundamentally, appellants chose to join all respondents in one action-If all chose to appear personally at hearing of appeal, could not be prevented from communicating with one another-Appellants also seeking suppression of reasons of Reed J. as including reasons in Appeal Book tantamount to carrying out part of order under appeal requiring in part, service of reasons on respondents-Application denied-Service of Appeal Book not rendering appeal nugatory as suggested-Grotesque to suggest respondents who have absolute right to appear and support order and reasons should not be allowed to have access to them-On issue of timetable for appeal, appellants should have entire summer period to bring appeal to state of readiness and if Appeal Books and Memorandum of Fact and Law not filed by September 1, 1996, appellants to show cause why appeal should not be dismissed-Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, RR. 310(1) (as am. by SOR/79-57, s. 5), 311 (as am. by SOR/90-846, s. 5), 324.