Les équipements d'érablière CDL Inc. c. Ératube Inc.

Les équipements d'érablière CDL Inc. c. Ératube Inc.

Applying the deferential standard of review to the prothonotary's discretionary rulings, the judge found no error in the prothonotary's determination that questions 13–38, 49 and 75 were relevant to defining the patented invention and must be answered; the plaintiff abandoned its appeal as to question 60; the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2001 FCT 107
Parties
Plaintiff/cross Defendant: LES ÉQUIPEMENTS D'ÉRABLIÈRE CDL INC.; Defendant/cross Plaintiff: ÉRATUBE INC.; Defendant/cross Plaintiff: RAYNALD DÉSORCY
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Prothonotary Decision Re Discovery / Motions Hearing (appeal From Prothonotary)
Outcome
Motions dismissed; appeals from the prothonotary dismissed; no costs awarded by consent; matter ordered to special management.
Legal Topics
Examinations for Discovery, Relevance of Evidence, Commercial Success, Standard of Review for Prothonotary Decisions, Case Management
Source Language
english
Patent Law Civil Procedure Discovery Examinations for Discovery Relevance of Evidence Commercial Success Standard of Review for Prothonotary Decisions Case Management

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LES ÉQUIPEMENTS D'ÉRABLIÈRE CDL INC.

Plaintiff/cross Defendant

ÉRATUBE INC.

Defendant/cross Plaintiff

RAYNALD DÉSORCY

Defendant/cross Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Prothonotary Decision Re Discovery / Motions Hearing (appeal From Prothonotary)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prothonotary erred in ordering answers to specified discovery questions
  2. 2 Whether questions about commercial success are admissible or constitute an impermissible fishing expedition
  3. 3 What standard of review applies to discretionary decisions of a prothonotary

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the deferential standard of review to the prothonotary's discretionary rulings, the judge found no error in the prothonotary's determination that questions 13–38, 49 and 75 were relevant to defining the patented invention and must be answered; the plaintiff abandoned its appeal as to question 60; the defendant's appeal preventing answers to questions 12 and 76 was dismissed because the plaintiff demonstrated those challenges and gave an undertaking to break down sales figures, and commercial success inquiries were not being used as improper fishing. Therefore the prothonotary's orders were upheld and both motions dismissed.

Court Disposition

Motions dismissed; appeals from the prothonotary dismissed; no costs awarded by consent; matter ordered to special management.

Orders

  • Motions dismissed
  • No costs awarded by consent of the parties