Camoplast Inc. v. Soucy International Inc.

Camoplast Inc. v. Soucy International Inc.

The motion to amend was allowed because under controlling authorities a liberal approach to amendments is required to adjudicate the real issues, the plaintiff did not establish that Deland's affidavit was false or that the amendments would cause irremediable prejudice, and permitting the amendments serves the interests of justice and case management.

Citation
2001 FCT 532
Parties
Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim: Camoplast Inc.; Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Soucy International Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Patent Litigation — Motion to Amend Statement of Defence and Counterclaim / Motion to Amend Under Federal Court Rules (pre‑trial)
Outcome
Motion allowed; defendant permitted to serve and file amended statement of defence and counterclaim.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Discovery, Res Judicata, Costs, Patent Invalidity Allegations
Source Language
English
Patent Law Civil Procedure Federal Court Practice Amendment of Pleadings Discovery Res Judicata Costs Patent Invalidity Allegations

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Camoplast Inc.

Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim

Soucy International Inc.

Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Litigation — Motion to Amend Statement of Defence and Counterclaim / Motion to Amend Under Federal Court Rules (pre‑trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant may amend its statement of defence and counterclaim to add allegations and documentary demands
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments are timely and based on newly discovered facts from examinations for discovery
  3. 3 Whether granting the amendment would cause irreparable prejudice to the plaintiff not compensable by costs

Ratio Decidendi

The motion to amend was allowed because under controlling authorities a liberal approach to amendments is required to adjudicate the real issues, the plaintiff did not establish that Deland's affidavit was false or that the amendments would cause irremediable prejudice, and permitting the amendments serves the interests of justice and case management.

Court Disposition

Motion allowed; defendant permitted to serve and file amended statement of defence and counterclaim.

Orders

  • Defendant allowed ten days from date of order to serve and file an amended statement of defence and counterclaim similar to Exhibit A of the Deland affidavit dated April 3, 2001
  • Parties shall, within 20 days of the date of this order, submit a timetable to the Court (jointly if possible) covering the remaining essential steps and reflecting intent to expedite the matter