Tazco Holdings Inc. v. Advantage Products Inc.

Tazco Holdings Inc. v. Advantage Products Inc.

The prothonotary’s factual findings that Brownlee (through Mr. Kathol) had received confidential information during a prior retainer and that there was a real risk such information could be used to Advantage's prejudice were reasonably supported by the affidavit evidence and accounts; he applied the correct legal test and there was no palpable and overriding error, therefore the prothonotary’s order disqualifying Brownlee stands and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
2008 FC 464
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Tazco Holdings Inc.; Plaintiff (appellant): Excalibre Oil Tools Ltd.; Plaintiff (appellant): Tebo Industries Ltd.; Defendant (respondent): Advantage Products Inc.; Defendant (respondent): Genesis Machining Services Inc.; Defendant (respondent): Weatherford Canada Ltd.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement; Motion to Disqualify Solicitors / Appeal From Prothonotary Order Disqualifying Counsel
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Conflict of Interest, Solicitor Disqualification, Standard of Review for Prothonotary Decisions
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Professional Responsibility Civil Procedure Patent Infringement Conflict of Interest Solicitor Disqualification Standard of Review for Prothonotary Decisions

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

Parties

Tazco Holdings Inc.

Plaintiff (appellant)

Excalibre Oil Tools Ltd.

Plaintiff (appellant)

Tebo Industries Ltd.

Plaintiff (appellant)

Advantage Products Inc.

Defendant (respondent)

Genesis Machining Services Inc.

Defendant (respondent)

Weatherford Canada Ltd.

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement; Motion to Disqualify Solicitors / Appeal From Prothonotary Order Disqualifying Counsel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Brownlee LLP was in a disqualifying conflict of interest due to prior retainer with Advantage Products Inc.
  2. 2 Whether the prothonotary erred in fact or law such that his discretionary order should be reviewed de novo
  3. 3 Whether delay by defendants barred the disqualification motion

Ratio Decidendi

The prothonotary’s factual findings that Brownlee (through Mr. Kathol) had received confidential information during a prior retainer and that there was a real risk such information could be used to Advantage's prejudice were reasonably supported by the affidavit evidence and accounts; he applied the correct legal test and there was no palpable and overriding error, therefore the prothonotary’s order disqualifying Brownlee stands and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Order of Prothonotary Aalto dated August 31, 2007 removing Brownlee LLP as solicitors of record for the plaintiffs is upheld