Association of chartered Certified accountants v. The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants,

Association of chartered Certified accountants v. The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants,

The expert reports were excluded because they failed Mohan's necessity criterion — the Court could perform the legal analysis itself — and also violated the exclusionary rule against expert opinions on domestic law by offering legal conclusions on 'significant government control' that would usurp the judiciary; accordingly the reports and testimony were inadmissible and barred.

Citation
2016 FC 1076
Parties
Plaintiffs / Defendants by Counterclaim: Association of Chartered Certified Accountants; Plaintiffs / Defendants by Counterclaim: Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (UK) in Canada; Defendants: The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants; Defendants: Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada; Defendant and Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario; Defendant and Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Ordre des comptables professionnels agréés du Québec; Defendant and Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia; Defendant and Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Chartered Professional Accountants of Alberta
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Trade Mark Registration Official Marks / Pre Trial Motion to Exclude Expert Evidence
Outcome
Motion granted: Reports declared inadmissible; Professors Poonam Puri and Stéphane Rousseau barred from testifying; costs awarded to Defendants.
Legal Topics
Official Marks, Public Authority, Expert Evidence Admissibility, Trade Marks Act Interpretation, Domestic Law Exclusion
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Evidence Administrative Law Civil Procedure Official Marks Public Authority Expert Evidence Admissibility Trade Marks Act Interpretation +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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Association of Chartered Certified Accountants

Plaintiffs / Defendants by Counterclaim

Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (UK) in Canada

Plaintiffs / Defendants by Counterclaim

The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants

Defendants

Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada

Defendants

Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario

Defendant and Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Ordre des comptables professionnels agréés du Québec

Defendant and Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia

Defendant and Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Chartered Professional Accountants of Alberta

Defendant and Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Trade Mark Registration Official Marks / Pre Trial Motion to Exclude Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants are public authorities under s.9(1)(n)(iii) of the Trade-marks Act
  2. 2 Admissibility of expert reports by legal academics
  3. 3 Whether expert opinion on domestic law is excluded

Ratio Decidendi

The expert reports were excluded because they failed Mohan's necessity criterion — the Court could perform the legal analysis itself — and also violated the exclusionary rule against expert opinions on domestic law by offering legal conclusions on 'significant government control' that would usurp the judiciary; accordingly the reports and testimony were inadmissible and barred.

Court Disposition

Motion granted: Reports declared inadmissible; Professors Poonam Puri and Stéphane Rousseau barred from testifying; costs awarded to Defendants.

Orders

  • The Reports are declared inadmissible and the Plaintiffs are barred from presenting Professors Poonam Puri and Stéphane Rousseau as expert witnesses at trial.
  • Costs for this motion are payable to the Defendants in any event of the cause.