Minnisota Mining and Manufacturing Co. v. Chemque Inc.
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge exercised her discretion judicially and the appellant failed to meet the Saywack test for Rule 399(2)(a): the alleged new matter was discoverable earlier and the appellant, with reasonable diligence, was on notice of the proposed amendment and the documents subject to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2001 FCA 369
- Parties
- Appellant: Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; Respondent: Chemque, Inc.
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 27 November 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Rule 399(2)(a), Discovery, Standard of Judicial Discretion, Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company
Appellant
Chemque, Inc.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge failed to exercise discretion in a judicial manner
- 2 Whether the appellant satisfied the test under Rule 399(2)(a) for relief based on new matter
- 3 Whether the alleged new matter was discoverable earlier with reasonable diligence
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge exercised her discretion judicially and the appellant failed to meet the Saywack test for Rule 399(2)(a): the alleged new matter was discoverable earlier and the appellant, with reasonable diligence, was on notice of the proposed amendment and the documents subject to the US confidentiality order.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Respondent awarded costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Minnisota Mining and Manufacturing Co. v. Chemque Inc. Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2001-11-27 Neutral citation 2001 FCA 369 File numbers A-206-01 Decision Content Date: 20011127 Docket: A-206-01 Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 369 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. LINDEN J.A. SEXTON J.A. BETWEEN: MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY Appellant, and CHEMQUE, INC. Respondent Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on November 27, 2001. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on November 27, 2001. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: SEXTON J.A. Date: 20011127 Docket: A-206-01 Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 369 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. LINDEN J.A. SEXTON J.A. BETWEEN: MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY Appellant, and CHEMQUE, INC. Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, November 27, 2001 SEXTON J.A. [1] We are not persuaded that Madame Justice Heneghan has failed to exercise her discretion in a judicial manner as defined by this Court in Visx Inc. v. Nidek Co. (1996), 72 C.P.R. (3d) 19 at 22 (F.C.A.). Her decision is reported at [2001] F.C.J. 386. [2] In particular we agree with her conclusion that the appeal has failed to satisfy the test for obtaining relief pursuant to Rule 399(2)(a) outlined in Saywack v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1986] 3 F.C. 189 (C.A.). Specifically, the appellant must show that the new matter relied on was discovered subsequent to the decision in issue and that it could not have been discovered sooner with reasonable diligence. In this case there was sufficient evidence which the appellant had, prior to the order permitting the amendment of the Statement of Defence, to put the appellant on notice that the defendant was proposing to amend its pleadings based on the documents from the American litigation. Both parties were aware of the United States confidentiality order and the appellant, with reasonable diligence, could have learned that the proposed amendment was based on the documents covered by the confidentiality order. [3] The appeal will be dismissed with costs. "J. Edgar Sexton" J.A.