Drolet v. Stiftung Gralsbotschaft

Drolet v. Stiftung Gralsbotschaft

The amendment was refused because it sought to introduce a new cause of action at a very advanced stage, was the product of late investigation amounting to negligence, and would likely postpone the scheduled proceedings and cause irreparable prejudice in costs; case management principles and the interests of justice required dismissal and an award of costs.

Citation
2007 FC 1276
Parties
Applicant/defendant by Counterclaim: YVON DROLET; Respondent/plaintiff by Counterclaim: STIFTUNG GRALSBOTSCHAFT; Respondent/plaintiff by Counterclaim: FOUNDATION OF THE GRAIL MOVEMENT - CANADA
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Intellectual Property (trademark and Copyright) / Pre Trial Motion to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
Respondents' motion to amend dismissed; amendment refused; costs awarded (maximum from Column III of the Tariff).
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Copyright Infringement, Trademark Infringement, Prejudice and Delay, Case Management
Source Language
English
Copyright Trademark Civil Procedure Costs Amendment of Pleadings Copyright Infringement Trademark Infringement Prejudice and Delay +1 more

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

YVON DROLET

Applicant/defendant by Counterclaim

STIFTUNG GRALSBOTSCHAFT

Respondent/plaintiff by Counterclaim

FOUNDATION OF THE GRAIL MOVEMENT - CANADA

Respondent/plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Civil Intellectual Property (trademark and Copyright) / Pre Trial Motion to Amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to allow an amendment to include a new copyright infringement cause of action at an advanced stage
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment is unduly late and causes prejudice and irreparable injustice
  3. 3 Whether the claim is prescribed or has no reasonable chance of success

Ratio Decidendi

The amendment was refused because it sought to introduce a new cause of action at a very advanced stage, was the product of late investigation amounting to negligence, and would likely postpone the scheduled proceedings and cause irreparable prejudice in costs; case management principles and the interests of justice required dismissal and an award of costs.

Court Disposition

Respondents' motion to amend dismissed; amendment refused; costs awarded (maximum from Column III of the Tariff).

Orders

  • The respondents’ motion for an amendment is dismissed, with maximum costs from Column III of the Tariff.
  • All other remedies sought by either party is dismissed.