Eurocopter v. Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limitée

Eurocopter v. Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limitée

The Court exercised its discretion to hear the motion despite concerns of prematurity, allowed Eurocopter's motion in part by requiring Bell to answer specified questions in the plaintiff's table (excluding identified question ranges), preserved the suspension ordered August 21, 2009 by limiting implications of this ruling, and awarded costs to Bell per tariff B (middle of column III).

Citation
2009 FC 1021
Parties
Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim: EUROCOPTER (simplified joint-stock company); Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim: BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON CANADA LIMITED
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Motion (ruling on Objections)
Outcome
Motion allowed in part
Legal Topics
Motion for Ruling on Objections, Prematurity of Motion, Collateral Attack, Suspension of Order, Answers to Interrogatories, Costs Entitlement
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Costs Appeal Confidentiality Motion for Ruling on Objections Prematurity of Motion Collateral Attack Suspension of Order +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EUROCOPTER (simplified joint-stock company)

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim

BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON CANADA LIMITED

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Motion (ruling on Objections)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Eurocopter's second motion is premature
  2. 2 Whether the motion constitutes a collateral attack on the prior order of August 21, 2009
  3. 3 Which specific questions Bell must answer from the plaintiff's table

Ratio Decidendi

The Court exercised its discretion to hear the motion despite concerns of prematurity, allowed Eurocopter's motion in part by requiring Bell to answer specified questions in the plaintiff's table (excluding identified question ranges), preserved the suspension ordered August 21, 2009 by limiting implications of this ruling, and awarded costs to Bell per tariff B (middle of column III).

Court Disposition

Motion allowed in part

Orders

  • Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited shall answer the questions listed in the Table relating to the plaintiff's motion except for questions 3 to 14, 17 to 32, 36 to 63 and 65 to 67
  • Answers must be filed within the same time limit as set out in paragraph 1 of the order of August 21, 2009 and, if that order is appealed, within five (5) days following the disposition of any such appeal