Cordon Bleu International Ltée. v. Eleanor's Cuisine Française Inc.

Cordon Bleu International Ltée. v. Eleanor's Cuisine Française Inc.

The trial judge erred in dismissing paras. 18.1 to 18.4 as irrelevant given that he allowed related paras. 18.5 and 22; any prejudice from delay could be compensated by costs; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the appellant is authorized to add paras. 18.1 to 18.4 to its re‑amended statement of claim.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2002 FCA 316
Parties
Appellant: CORDON BLEU INTERNATIONAL LTÉE; Respondent: ELEANOR'S CUISINE FRANÇAISE INC.; Respondent: LE CORDON BLEU, S.A.R.L.; Respondent: RENAUD COINTREAU & CIE; Respondent: LE CORDON BLEU B.V.
Court
Federal Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal to Federal Court of Appeal / Judgment on Amendment of Pleadings/motion to Re‑amend Statement of Claim
Outcome
Appeal allowed; trial judge's decision quashed; appellant authorized to add paras. 18.1 to 18.4 to its re‑amended statement of claim; no costs awarded.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Relevance of Pleadings, Delay and Prejudice, Costs, Multiplicity of Proceedings
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Trade‑marks Amendment of Pleadings Relevance of Pleadings Delay and Prejudice Costs Multiplicity of Proceedings

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CORDON BLEU INTERNATIONAL LTÉE

Appellant

ELEANOR'S CUISINE FRANÇAISE INC.

Respondent

LE CORDON BLEU, S.A.R.L.

Respondent

RENAUD COINTREAU & CIE

Respondent

LE CORDON BLEU B.V.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal to Federal Court of Appeal / Judgment on Amendment of Pleadings/motion to Re‑amend Statement of Claim

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in dismissing paras. 18.1 to 18.4 of the proposed amendment as irrelevant
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment was necessary to permit the appellant to assert rights acquired by its predecessor in title
  3. 3 Whether prejudice from delay justified refusal to permit the amendment and whether such prejudice could be compensated by costs

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in dismissing paras. 18.1 to 18.4 as irrelevant given that he allowed related paras. 18.5 and 22; any prejudice from delay could be compensated by costs; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the appellant is authorized to add paras. 18.1 to 18.4 to its re‑amended statement of claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; trial judge's decision quashed; appellant authorized to add paras. 18.1 to 18.4 to its re‑amended statement of claim; no costs awarded.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and trial judge's decision quashed; appellant authorized to add paras. 18.1 to 18.4 to its re‑amended statement of claim.
  • No costs awarded.