A. Lassonde Inc. v. Sun Pac Foods Ltd.

A. Lassonde Inc. v. Sun Pac Foods Ltd.

The appeal was allowed because the prothonotary and motions judge applied the wrong principle by fettering the exercise of discretion and misapplying the relevance standard and case management rules. A party's specific right under Rule 240 to obtain answers to relevant discovery questions cannot be overridden by general case management provisions; accordingly Sun Pac is entitled to continue examinations for discovery on the produced documents, further steps are stayed pending completion, and costs were awarded to Sun Pac.

Citation
2004 FC 1240
Parties
Plaintiff; Defendant by Counterclaim: A. Lassonde Inc.; Defendant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Sun Pac Foods Limited
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Litigation Trademark Infringement and Passing Off / Interlocutory Motion and Appeal From Case Management Order (discovery Dispute)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of June 1, 2004 varied to permit further discoveries and to stay further steps; costs awarded to Sun Pac
Legal Topics
Examinations for Discovery, Relevance of Discovery Questions, Case Management, Protective Orders, Stay of Proceedings, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Trademark Law Evidence Examinations for Discovery Relevance of Discovery Questions Case Management Protective Orders +2 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. Lassonde Inc.

Plaintiff; Defendant by Counterclaim

Sun Pac Foods Limited

Defendant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Civil Litigation Trademark Infringement and Passing Off / Interlocutory Motion and Appeal From Case Management Order (discovery Dispute)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What standard of review applies to the appealed case management order
  2. 2 Whether the order limiting further discoveries was based on an error of law or misapprehension of fact
  3. 3 Whether case management powers may lawfully override a party's right to relevant discovery under the Rules

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the prothonotary and motions judge applied the wrong principle by fettering the exercise of discretion and misapplying the relevance standard and case management rules. A party's specific right under Rule 240 to obtain answers to relevant discovery questions cannot be overridden by general case management provisions; accordingly Sun Pac is entitled to continue examinations for discovery on the produced documents, further steps are stayed pending completion, and costs were awarded to Sun Pac.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of June 1, 2004 varied to permit further discoveries and to stay further steps; costs awarded to Sun Pac

Orders

  • The appeal of Sun Pac is allowed.
  • Sun Pac may continue its examinations for discovery of the Plaintiff, A. Lassonde Inc., based on documents produced by Lassonde from March 21, 2000 to April 23, 2004 and any additional documents produced thereafter.