Canada ( Attorney General ) v. Luxottica Canada Inc.
T-1460-94
Joyal J.
21-12-94
9 pp.
Application under Federal Court Act, s. 50 to stay application for interim injunction under Competition Act, s. 33-Respondents contend at time of hearing of application, Attorney General did not have evidence needed to institute and conclude criminal proceedings but rather using s. 33 procedure to build up case with view to eventual criminal proceedings-Respondents further contend continuation of injunction proceedings would prejudice their right not to incriminate themselves by compelling them to defend themselves against application-S. 33(6) requiring Attorney General to proceed as expeditiously as possible to institute and conclude prosecutions or proceedings as soon as possible-Delay herein of more than five months since injunction application made and fact s. 33 providing methods for avoiding abuses and unjustified delays by Attorney General support respondents' argument with respect to use of proceedings for "fishing expeditions"-Although not case in which individual compelled to testify, principles of privilege against self-incrimination relevant as substance of respondents' argument against application for interim injunction would be very advantageous to Attorney General who is trying to determine whether or not he will institute proceedings against respondents-Dismissing application would allow Attorney General to do indirectly what prohibited from doing directly-Test in respect of stay of proceedings first requiring continuation of proceedings result in irreparable harm to plaintiff, and second, that order not result in injustice to other parties to matter-Since possibility of serious harm to applicants very real and since stay of proceedings does not rule out possibility of instituting criminal proceedings, in best interests of all parties to stay proceedings-Application granted-Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, s. 50-Competition Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-34, s. 33 (as am. by S.C. 1993, c. 34, s. 50).