Multi Formulations Ltd. v. Allmax Nutrition Inc.

Multi Formulations Ltd. v. Allmax Nutrition Inc.

The court held that conspiracy allegations under s.45 were sufficiently pleaded and not plain and obvious to fail (including as against individual defendants Begley and Gardiner), particulars were not required, and cross-border/public elements did not defeat jurisdiction; however references to s.61(6) and to s.50 of the Competition Act were struck as disclosing no reasonable cause of action (s.50 struck without leave to amend). Leave to amend other parts of the pleading was granted and Allmax given 30 days to file its amended pleadings; no costs ordered.

Citation
2009 FC 375
Parties
Plaintiff: MULTI FORMULATIONS LTD.; Plaintiff: CELL FORMULATIONS LTD.; Plaintiff: NEW CELL FORMULATIONS LTD.; Plaintiff: PUMP FORMULATIONS LTD.; Plaintiff: SIX STAR FORMULATIONS LTD.; Plaintiff: MTOR FORMULATIONS LTD.; Plaintiff: MASS FORMULATIONS LTD.; Plaintiff: IML FORMULATIONS LTD.; Plaintiff: HALO FORMULATIONS LTD.; Plaintiff: HHC FORMULATIONS LTD.; Plaintiff: LEUKIC FORMULATIONS LTD.; Plaintiff: CANADIAN SUPPLEMENT TRADEMARK LTD.; Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim: ALLMAX NUTRITION INC.; Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim: HEALTHY BODY SERVICES INC.; Defendant: RON TORCH; Defendant: MICHAEL KICHUK; Defendant by Counterclaim: IOVATE HEALTH SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL INC.; Defendant by Counterclaim: IOVATE HEALTH SCIENCES INC.; Defendant by Counterclaim: TERRY BEGLEY; Defendant by Counterclaim: PAUL TIMOTHY GARDINER
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement Action With Counterclaim Under the Competition Act / Motion to Strike Pleadings (rule 21(1))
Outcome
Partial strike and partial allowance: references to s.61(6) and s.50 of the Competition Act struck without leave to amend; remaining Competition Act conspiracy and other tort-based allegations allowed to stand with leave to amend; particulars denied; extension of time granted; no costs.
Legal Topics
Conspiracy (s.45), Discriminatory Pricing (s.50(1)(a)), Striking Pleadings, Personal Liability of Directors, Particulars, Jurisdiction, Patent Assignment
Source Language
English
Patent Law Competition Law Civil Procedure Tort Law Contract Law Conspiracy (s.45) Discriminatory Pricing (s.50(1)(a)) Striking Pleadings +4 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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MULTI FORMULATIONS LTD.

Plaintiff

CELL FORMULATIONS LTD.

Plaintiff

NEW CELL FORMULATIONS LTD.

Plaintiff

PUMP FORMULATIONS LTD.

Plaintiff

SIX STAR FORMULATIONS LTD.

Plaintiff

MTOR FORMULATIONS LTD.

Plaintiff

MASS FORMULATIONS LTD.

Plaintiff

IML FORMULATIONS LTD.

Plaintiff

HALO FORMULATIONS LTD.

Plaintiff

HHC FORMULATIONS LTD.

Plaintiff

LEUKIC FORMULATIONS LTD.

Plaintiff

CANADIAN SUPPLEMENT TRADEMARK LTD.

Plaintiff

ALLMAX NUTRITION INC.

Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim

HEALTHY BODY SERVICES INC.

Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim

RON TORCH

Defendant

MICHAEL KICHUK

Defendant

IOVATE HEALTH SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL INC.

Defendant by Counterclaim

IOVATE HEALTH SCIENCES INC.

Defendant by Counterclaim

TERRY BEGLEY

Defendant by Counterclaim

PAUL TIMOTHY GARDINER

Defendant by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement Action With Counterclaim Under the Competition Act / Motion to Strike Pleadings (rule 21(1))

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether allegations under s.45 (conspiracy) of the Competition Act are sufficiently pleaded
  2. 2 Whether allegations under s.50(1)(a) (discriminatory pricing) disclose a cause of action
  3. 3 Whether individual defendants (directing minds) can be held personally liable on conspiracy/competition claims at pleading stage

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that conspiracy allegations under s.45 were sufficiently pleaded and not plain and obvious to fail (including as against individual defendants Begley and Gardiner), particulars were not required, and cross-border/public elements did not defeat jurisdiction; however references to s.61(6) and to s.50 of the Competition Act were struck as disclosing no reasonable cause of action (s.50 struck without leave to amend). Leave to amend other parts of the pleading was granted and Allmax given 30 days to file its amended pleadings; no costs ordered.

Court Disposition

Partial strike and partial allowance: references to s.61(6) and s.50 of the Competition Act struck without leave to amend; remaining Competition Act conspiracy and other tort-based allegations allowed to stand with leave to amend; particulars denied; extension of time granted; no costs.

Orders

  • References to sections 61(6) and section 50 of the Competition Act in the Fresh as Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim are hereby struck out without leave to amend.
  • The Defendants/Plaintiffs by Counterclaim are granted leave to amend the Fresh as Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim in accordance with these reasons for decision.