Remo Imports Ltd. v. Jaguar Canada Ltd.

Remo Imports Ltd. v. Jaguar Canada Ltd.

The motion to amend was denied because it was brought unreasonably late (after court-ordered cutoff and years after the facts were known), would introduce a new cause of action causing prejudice and unavoidable delay through further discovery and replies, and because the proposed defences would fail as a matter of law (laches barred by statutory limitation and acquiescence could not be established given plaintiff's admission of no reliance).

Citation
2005 FC 870
Parties
Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim: Remo Imports Ltd.; Defendants/plaintiffs by Counterclaim: Jaguar Cars Limited and Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited carrying on business as Jaguar Canada
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Motion to Amend Pleadings in Trademark Action (federal Court) / Motion to Amend Pleadings Brought During Trial (after Close of Pleadings)
Outcome
Motion denied
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Estoppel by Acquiescence, Laches, Privilege, Case Management and Deadlines, Costs
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Equity Amendment of Pleadings Estoppel by Acquiescence Laches Privilege Case Management and Deadlines +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 7 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Remo Imports Ltd.

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim

Jaguar Cars Limited and Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited carrying on business as Jaguar Canada

Defendants/plaintiffs by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Motion to Amend Pleadings in Trademark Action (federal Court) / Motion to Amend Pleadings Brought During Trial (after Close of Pleadings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motion should be dismissed for being brought under incorrect Rules sections
  2. 2 Whether certain motion materials are privileged settlement communications and should be struck
  3. 3 Whether parties must file case law in English when available

Ratio Decidendi

The motion to amend was denied because it was brought unreasonably late (after court-ordered cutoff and years after the facts were known), would introduce a new cause of action causing prejudice and unavoidable delay through further discovery and replies, and because the proposed defences would fail as a matter of law (laches barred by statutory limitation and acquiescence could not be established given plaintiff's admission of no reliance).

Court Disposition

Motion denied

Orders

  • The motion is denied.
  • Costs of the motion awarded to the Defendants on a solicitor-and-client basis.