Iris Le Groupe Visuel (1990) Inc. v. Trustus International Trading Inc.

Iris Le Groupe Visuel (1990) Inc. v. Trustus International Trading Inc.

The prothonotary did not err in refusing the proposed amendments because the pleadings and supporting affidavit lacked sufficient factual allegations to establish a reasonable basis for personal liability of the company managers or for punitive damages; the prothonotary properly exercised his discretion and may assess the evidence when deciding amendment motions.

Citation
2003 FC 1193
Parties
Plaintiff / Defendant to Counterclaim: IRIS, LE GROUPE VISUEL (1990) Inc.; Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim: TRUSTUS INTERNATIONAL TRADING INC.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Trademark Infringement / Amendment of Pleadings / Appeal From Prothonotary Decision on Motion to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of Prothonotary Richard Morneau affirmed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Personal Liability of Directors, Punitive Damages, Standard of Review for Prothonotary, Costs
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Corporate Law Amendment of Pleadings Personal Liability of Directors Punitive Damages Standard of Review for Prothonotary Costs

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IRIS, LE GROUPE VISUEL (1990) Inc.

Plaintiff / Defendant to Counterclaim

TRUSTUS INTERNATIONAL TRADING INC.

Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Trademark Infringement / Amendment of Pleadings / Appeal From Prothonotary Decision on Motion to Amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prothonotary erred in refusing leave to amend to implead company managers personally
  2. 2 Whether the prothonotary erred in refusing leave to plead punitive/exemplary damages against individuals
  3. 3 Proper standard of review for prothonotary discretionary decisions on amendments

Ratio Decidendi

The prothonotary did not err in refusing the proposed amendments because the pleadings and supporting affidavit lacked sufficient factual allegations to establish a reasonable basis for personal liability of the company managers or for punitive damages; the prothonotary properly exercised his discretion and may assess the evidence when deciding amendment motions.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of Prothonotary Richard Morneau affirmed

Orders

  • Prothonotary Morneau's decision of May 15, 2003 is affirmed; proposed amendments to implead Jack Wang, Devun Walsh and Rob Dow personally and to claim punitive/exemplary damages are disallowed; the amendment finding unlawful use of the trademark 'IRIS' (paragraph (d)) as authorized by the prothonotary remains.
  • Costs and disbursements awarded to the defendant in the amount of $1,500