Drolet v. Stiftung Gralsbotchaft

Drolet v. Stiftung Gralsbotchaft

The prothonotary's December 5, 2007 decision was set aside and leave to amend was granted because the applicant did not demonstrate prejudice that could not be compensated by costs; the court imposed conditions (respondents to bear costs of additional examinations and motion costs) to mitigate delay and prejudice and ordered time limits for filing amended pleadings and referral to the prothonotary to reschedule the proceedings.

Citation
2007 FC 1347
Parties
Applicant / Defendant by Counterclaim: Yvon Drolet; Respondent / Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Stiftung Gralsbotchaft; Respondent / Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Foundation of the Grail Movement – Canada
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Motion in a Civil Intellectual Property Action (motion to Amend Pleadings) / Pre Trial (motion to Amend; Case Management; Scheduling)
Outcome
Decision of the prothonotary dated December 5, 2007 set aside; respondents granted leave to amend their defence and counterclaim; applicant granted leave to amend its response and counterclaim; conditions imposed requiring respondents to pay costs for additional examinations and the costs of the motion; matter...
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Delay and Prejudice, De Novo Review of Prothonotary Decisions, Case Management, Conditions for Granting Leave to Amend
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Copyright Trademark Civil Procedure Costs Amendment of Pleadings Delay and Prejudice De Novo Review of Prothonotary Decisions +2 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yvon Drolet

Applicant / Defendant by Counterclaim

Stiftung Gralsbotchaft

Respondent / Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Foundation of the Grail Movement – Canada

Respondent / Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Motion in a Civil Intellectual Property Action (motion to Amend Pleadings) / Pre Trial (motion to Amend; Case Management; Scheduling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prothonotary's refusal to permit amendment should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment introduces a new cause of action for copyright infringement
  3. 3 Whether allowing the amendment at this late stage would cause irreparable prejudice or unacceptable delay

Ratio Decidendi

The prothonotary's December 5, 2007 decision was set aside and leave to amend was granted because the applicant did not demonstrate prejudice that could not be compensated by costs; the court imposed conditions (respondents to bear costs of additional examinations and motion costs) to mitigate delay and prejudice and ordered time limits for filing amended pleadings and referral to the prothonotary to reschedule the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Decision of the prothonotary dated December 5, 2007 set aside; respondents granted leave to amend their defence and counterclaim; applicant granted leave to amend its response and counterclaim; conditions imposed requiring respondents to pay costs for additional examinations and the costs of the motion; matter...

Orders

  • The decision by the prothonotary on December 5, 2007 is set aside.
  • The respondents / plaintiffs by counterclaim are granted leave to amend their defence and counterclaim in accordance with the draft in Appendix A (tab B of their current motion record) by serving and filing an amended defence and counterclaim within two (2) days of their receipt of this decision.