Nav Canada v. Adacel Technologies Ltd.

Nav Canada v. Adacel Technologies Ltd.

The appeal was dismissed because the defendants failed to demonstrate that the Prothonotary's discretionary interlocutory decision was clearly wrong or a misuse of discretion; the pleadings were sufficiently particular on their face and the information sought was appropriately sought at discovery rather than by particulars.

Citation
2005 FC 1678
Parties
Plaintiff: NAV CANADA; Defendant: ADACEL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED; Defendant: ADACEL INC.; Defendant: CAE INC.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Appeal From Prothonotary Decision / Interlocutory Motion for Particulars Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; motion to set aside the Prothonotary's decision dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Particulars, Motions, Case Management, Interlocutory Appeal, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Copyright Particulars Motions Case Management Interlocutory Appeal Costs

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

Parties

NAV CANADA

Plaintiff

ADACEL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

Defendant

ADACEL INC.

Defendant

CAE INC.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Appeal From Prothonotary Decision / Interlocutory Motion for Particulars Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Prothonotary erred in law in dismissing motions for particulars and related relief
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings were sufficiently particular or required further particulars
  3. 3 Whether requested information was properly sought at pleading stage or at discovery

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the defendants failed to demonstrate that the Prothonotary's discretionary interlocutory decision was clearly wrong or a misuse of discretion; the pleadings were sufficiently particular on their face and the information sought was appropriately sought at discovery rather than by particulars.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; motion to set aside the Prothonotary's decision dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Defendants' motion to set aside the Prothonotary's decision dated September 28, 2005 is dismissed, with costs.
  • The period of time within which the defendants were ordered by the Prothonotary to serve and file their statements of defence shall start from the date of this Order.