S&P Global Inc. v. S&P Data Corp.

S&P Global Inc. v. S&P Data Corp.

The appeal is dismissed because the Prothonotary did not err in law nor make a palpable and overriding factual error in concluding that the defendant’s abuse of process allegations and counterclaim contained sufficient material facts to survive a motion to strike and that particulars were not required at the pleading stage; the Prothonotary properly applied the applicable standards for striking pleadings and for ordering particulars and her discretionary decision stands on Rule 51 review.

Citation
2021 FC 1304
Parties
Plaintiff: S&P Global Inc.; Plaintiff: Standard and Poor’s Financial Services LLC; Defendant: S&P Data Corp
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Trademark Infringement; Counterclaim for Abuse of Process / Appeal From Prothonotary Decision Under Rule 51 of the Federal Courts Rules
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Motion to Strike, Particulars at Pleading Stage, Standard of Review for Rule 51 Appeals, Scope of Pleadings, Costs
Source Language
English
Trademark Law Civil Procedure Tort Law Pleadings and Particulars Appellate Review Abuse of Process Motion to Strike Particulars at Pleading Stage +3 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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S&P Global Inc.

Plaintiff

Standard and Poor’s Financial Services LLC

Plaintiff

S&P Data Corp

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Trademark Infringement; Counterclaim for Abuse of Process / Appeal From Prothonotary Decision Under Rule 51 of the Federal Courts Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Prothonotary erred by failing to require pleading of an overt act or threat for abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the defendant’s abuse of process pleadings were bald or conclusory and therefore should be struck
  3. 3 Whether the Prothonotary erred in analogizing this case to Tractor Supply

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the Prothonotary did not err in law nor make a palpable and overriding factual error in concluding that the defendant’s abuse of process allegations and counterclaim contained sufficient material facts to survive a motion to strike and that particulars were not required at the pleading stage; the Prothonotary properly applied the applicable standards for striking pleadings and for ordering particulars and her discretionary decision stands on Rule 51 review.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The plaintiffs’ appeal from the Order of Prothonotary Milczynski dated April 21, 2021 is dismissed.
  • The plaintiffs shall pay costs of the appeal to the defendant in the amount of $3,000.