Hyperlawhypertext legal database R. v. Anthes Business Forms et al. [1978] 1 SCR 970

← Cases

R. v. Anthes Business Forms et al.

[1978] 1 SCR 970 Court SCC Decision date 1977-02-15 English

PartiesHer Majesty The Queen (Plaintiff) Appellant·Anthes Business Forms et al. (Defendants) Respondents

Counsel (13)
R. Heather and R. Murray, for the appellant.
J.J. Robinette, Q.C., and G.G.S. Takach, for the respondent Moore Business Forms Ltd.
G.F. Henderson, Q.C., and G. Clarke, for the respondent R.L. Crane Ltd.
J.W. Brown, Q.C., and C.S. Goldman, for the respondents Autographic Business Forms Ltd., Continuous Forms (Alberta) Ltd., Continuous Forms Ltd., Savoy Business Forms Ltd., Systems Equipment Ltd. and Western Business Forms Ltd.
B.C. Bynoe, Q.C., for the respondent ABF Automated Business Forms (Western) Ltd.
John Rook, for the respondent Keystone Business Forms Ltd.
Solicitor for the appellant: D.A.H. Heather, Toronto.
Solicitors for Anthes Business Forms Ltd.: Miller, Thomson, Sedgewick, Toronto.
Solicitors for Autographic Business Forms Ltd., Continuous Forms (Alberta) Ltd., Continuous Forms Ltd., Savoy Business Forms Ltd., Systems Equipment Ltd. and Western Business Forms Ltd.: Blake, Cassels & Graydon, Toronto.
Solicitor for ABF Automated Business Forms (Western) Ltd.: B. Clive Bynoe, Toronto.
Solicitors for R.L. Crane Ltd.: Gowling & Henderson, Ottawa.
Solicitors for Keystone Business Forms Ltd.: Holden, Murdoch & Walton, Toronto.
Solicitors for Moore Business Forms Ltd.: McCarthy & McCarthy, Toronto.

Judges Laskin, Bora; Martland, Ronald; Judson, Wilfred; Ritchie, Roland Almon; Spence, Wishart Flett; Pigeon, Louis-Philippe; Dickson, Robert George Brian; Beetz, Jean; de Grandpré, Louis-Philippe

Delivered by Majority

On appeal from Ontario

Subjects Competition law

Contents

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

THE CHIEF JUSTICE—We are all of the opinion that this appeal fails for want of jurisdiction. In our view, taking the trial judge’s reasons as a whole, we are not persuaded that he misdirected himself on the law, nor do we think that we would be justified in treating a single paragraph in those reasons as disclosing an error of law when even Arnup J.A. in his dissent regarded that paragraph as ambiguous; and hence, as we view it, it is not clearly indicative of a reversible error of law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Solicitor for the appellant: D.A.H. Heather, Toronto.
Solicitors for Anthes Business Forms Ltd.: Miller, Thomson, Sedgewick, Toronto.
Solicitors for Autographic Business Forms Ltd., Continuous Forms (Alberta) Ltd., Continuous Forms Ltd., Savoy Business Forms Ltd., Systems Equipment Ltd. and Western Business Forms Ltd.: Blake, Cassels & Graydon, Toronto.
Solicitor for ABF Automated Business Forms (Western) Ltd.: B. Clive Bynoe, Toronto.
Solicitors for R.L. Crane Ltd.: Gowling & Henderson, Ottawa.
Solicitors for Keystone Business Forms Ltd.: Holden, Murdoch & Walton, Toronto.
Solicitors for Moore Business Forms Ltd.: McCarthy & McCarthy, Toronto.

Footnotes

  1. [1] (1975), 20 C.P.R. (2d) 1.
  2. [2] (1974), 16 C.P.R. (2d) 216.