Sikes v. EnCana Corporation

Sikes v. EnCana Corporation

On the contested facts the Court preferred Mr. Garland's unchallenged contemporaneous notes and conflict-review evidence over Dr. Sikes' inconsistent and unreliable testimony; Plaintiffs failed to prove a solicitor-client relationship or disclosure of relevant confidential information or legal advice, so Smart &...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2016 FC 110
Parties
Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim: C. Steven Sikes; Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim: Aquero, LLC; Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim: Aquial, LLC; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim: EnCana Corporation; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim: Cenovus FCCL Ltd.; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim: FCCL Partnership; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim: Cenovus Energy Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement Action / Interlocutory Motion to Remove Opposing Solicitors (motion to Disqualify Counsel)
Outcome
Motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Solicitor Disqualification, Confidentiality, Conflict of Interest, Costs, Laches
Source Language
english
Intellectual Property Professional Responsibility Civil Procedure Patent Infringement Solicitor Disqualification Confidentiality Conflict of Interest Costs +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C. Steven Sikes

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim

Aquero, LLC

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim

Aquial, LLC

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim

EnCana Corporation

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim

Cenovus FCCL Ltd.

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim

FCCL Partnership

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim

Cenovus Energy Inc.

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement Action / Interlocutory Motion to Remove Opposing Solicitors (motion to Disqualify Counsel)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a solicitor-client relationship arose between Dr. Sikes and Mr. Garland in June 2008
  2. 2 Whether confidential information was disclosed to Mr. Garland relevant to the present action
  3. 3 Whether any legal advice was provided that creates a risk of prejudice to the Plaintiffs if Smart & Biggar continues to act for the Defendants

Ratio Decidendi

On the contested facts the Court preferred Mr. Garland's unchallenged contemporaneous notes and conflict-review evidence over Dr. Sikes' inconsistent and unreliable testimony; Plaintiffs failed to prove a solicitor-client relationship or disclosure of relevant confidential information or legal advice, so Smart & Biggar was not disqualified and the motion was dismissed with costs to the Defendants.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed

Orders

  • The motion is dismissed.
  • Costs in the amount of $29,991.36 are awarded to the Defendants, to be paid forthwith in any event of the cause.