Weatherford Canada Ltd. v. Corlac Inc.
- Citation
- 2009 FC 569
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 2 June 2009
- Posture
- Civil (patent/contract Dispute) / Trial (exhibit Identification/order)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 2 June 2009
- Posture
- Civil (patent/contract Dispute) / Trial (exhibit Identification/order)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court determined that only documents introduced through a witness comprise the final Exhibit 10 and ordered that all other documents in the original Exhibit 10 be removed and destroyed, with new volumes created containing the documents listed in Schedule A as the final Exhibit 10.
Court disposition
Order granted: Schedule A constitutes final Exhibit 10; Registry to remove and shred other documents; new volumes to be created and retained; Judge's copy to have non-Schedule A documents removed and destroyed.
Orders
- Documents listed in Schedule A constitute the final version of Exhibit 10.
- The Registry shall remove all other documents in Exhibit 10 and shred them.
- New volumes will be created containing the documents described in Schedule A and these shall be retained as the Exhibit 10 documents.
- The Court shall remove from the Judge’s Copy of the original Exhibit 10 volumes those documents not listed in Schedule A; such removed documents will not be read or referred to and shall be destroyed.
- The Registry shall comply with paragraph 3 as soon as is practicable.
02
Material facts
Parties
WEATHERFORD CANADA LTD.
Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim) Counsel: Robert MacFarlane; Adam Bobker; Joshua Spicer; Bereskin & ParrWEATHERFORD CANADA PARTNERSHIP
Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim) Counsel: Robert MacFarlane; Adam Bobker; Joshua Spicer; Bereskin & ParrEDWARD GRENKE
Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim) Counsel: Bruce Stratton; Vincent Man; Dimock Stratton LLPGRENCO INDUSTRIES LTD.
Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim) Counsel: Bruce Stratton; Vincent Man; Dimock Stratton LLPCORLAC INC.
Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim) Counsel: Christopher Kvas; William Regan; Mala Joshi; Ridout & Maybee LLPNATIONAL-OILWELL CANADA LTD.
Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim) Counsel: Christopher Kvas; William Regan; Mala Joshi; Ridout & Maybee LLPNATIONAL OILWELL INCORPORATED
Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim) Counsel: Christopher Kvas; William Regan; Mala Joshi; Ridout & Maybee LLP03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil (patent/contract Dispute) / Trial (exhibit Identification/order)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether binders marked as Exhibit 10 should be finalized or be marked for identification
- 02
Which documents introduced through witnesses constitute the final version of Exhibit 10
- 03
Whether the Registry should remove and destroy documents not part of final Exhibit 10
- 04
Court authority to control and order disposition of trial exhibits
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicant submitted that only documents introduced through a witness should constitute evidence and form the final version of Exhibit 10 and therefore the remaining materials should be removed.
- Respondent
- Respondent maintained the existing marking and volume composition should be preserved or disputed the scope of removal, but the transcript records no sustained legal objection preventing the court from ordering finalization and removal.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Federal Court practice and evidentiary doctrine (as applied by the Court)
The court controls the identification and final composition of trial exhibits; only documents formally introduced through a witness constitute evidence for the record.
- 02
Inherent supervisory authority of the Court / Federal Court Rules
The Registry must comply with court orders regarding retention and destruction of documents to preserve the integrity of the record.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court determined that only documents introduced through a witness comprise the final Exhibit 10 and ordered that all other documents in the original Exhibit 10 be removed and destroyed, with new volumes created containing the documents listed in Schedule A as the final Exhibit 10.
Obiter and limits
- In hindsight Exhibit 10 should have been marked for identification rather than as final at commencement of trial
- The Court directed that removed documents shall not be read or referred to and shall be destroyed
Court disposition
Order granted: Schedule A constitutes final Exhibit 10; Registry to remove and shred other documents; new volumes to be created and retained; Judge's copy to have non-Schedule A documents removed and destroyed.
- Documents listed in Schedule A constitute the final version of Exhibit 10.
- The Registry shall remove all other documents in Exhibit 10 and shred them.
- New volumes will be created containing the documents described in Schedule A and these shall be retained as the Exhibit 10 documents.
- The Court shall remove from the Judge’s Copy of the original Exhibit 10 volumes those documents not listed in Schedule A; such removed documents will not be read or referred to and shall be destroyed.
- The Registry shall comply with paragraph 3 as soon as is practicable.
Source and reliance status
Federal Court · 2 June 2009
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Federal Court
Judgment· 2 June 2009
Weatherford Canada Ltd. v. Corlac Inc. Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2009-06-02 Neutral citation 2009 FC 569 File numbers T-1236-01 Decision Content Federal Court Cour fédérale Date: 20090602 Docket: T-1236-01 Citation: 2009 FC 569 Toronto , Ontario , June 2, 2009 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan BETWEEN: WEATHERFORD CANADA LTD.,
WEATHERFORD
CANADA PARTNERSHIP, EDWARD GRENKE AND GRENCO INDUSTRIES LTD. Plaintiffs (Defendants by Counterclaim) and CORLAC INC., NATIONAL-OILWELL CANADA LTD.
AND NATIONAL OILWELL INCORPORATED Defendants (Plaintiffs by Counterclaim)
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER [1] At the commencement of this trial several binders of documents were marked as Exhibit 10 on the basis that only those documents introduced through a witness would constitute evidence and form the final version of Exhibit 10. In hindsight, Exhibit 10 should have been marked for “identification”. [2] The documents listed in the attached Schedule A are those which were introduced through a witness and as such constitute the final version of Exhibit 10. [3] The Registry is to remove all the other documents in Exhibit 10 and shred them. New volumes will be created containing the documents described in Schedule A and these shall be retained as the Exhibit 10 documents. [4] The Court shall remove from the Judge’s Copy of the original Exhibit 10 volumes those documents not listed in Schedule A and such removed documents will not be read or referred to and shall be destroyed.
ORDER THIS COURT ORDERS that the documents listed in Schedule A constitute the final version of Exhibit 10, and the Registry shall comply with paragraph 3 as soon as is practicable. “Michael L. Phelan” Judge
SCHEDULE A Exhibit 10 List Exhibit No. Description Date Filed/ Marked 10(P322) Refer to Index page of Exhibit April 20, 2009 10(P302) Refer to Index page of Exhibit April 20, 2009 10(P360) Refer to Index page of Exhibit April 20, 2009 10(P300) Refer to Index page of Exhibit April 20, 2009 10(P305) Refer to Index page of Exhibit April 20, 2009 10(P314) Refer to Index page of Exhibit April 20, 2009 10(301) Refer to Index page of Exhibit April 20, 2009 10(P316-317) Refer to Index page of Exhibit April 20, 2009 10(P297) Refer to Index page of Exhibit April 20, 2009 10(P299) Refer to Index page of Exhibit 10(D148) Refer to Index page of Exhibit April 21, 2009 10(P353), last two pages Refer to Index page of Exhibit April 24, 2009 10(P303) Refer to Index of Exhibit April 27, 2009 10(D123) Refer to Index of Exhibit April 27, 2009 10(D147) Refer to Index of Exhibit April 28, 2009 10(D341) pg.125 Refer to Index of Exhibit April 28, 2009 10(D189) Refer to Index of Exhibit April 28, 2009 10(D311) Refer to Index of Exhibit April 28, 2009 10(P139) Refer to Index of Exhibit April 29, 2009 10(P141) Refer to Index of Exhibit April 29, 2009 10(P144) Refer to Index of Exhibit April 29, 2009 10(P154) Refer to Index of Exhibit April 29, 2009 10(P215) Refer to Index of Exhibit April 29, 2009 10(P207) Refer to Index of Exhibit April 29, 2009 10(P158) Refer to Index of Exhibit April 29,
2009 10(P161) Refer to Index of Exhibit April 29, 2009 10(P183) Refer to Index of Exhibit April 29, 2009 10(P188) Refer to Index of Exhibit April 29, 2009 10(P184) Refer to Index of Exhibit April 29, 2009 10(P179) Refer to Index of Exhibit April 29, 2009 10(P199) Refer to Index of Exhibit April 29, 2009 10(P201) Refer to Index of Exhibit April 29, 2009 10(D362) Refer to Index of Exhibit April 30, 2009 10(D151) Refer to Index of Exhibit April 30, 2009 10(D162) Refer to Index of Exhibit April 30, 2009 10(D193) Refer to Index of Exhibit April 30, 2009 10(D208) Refer to Index of Exhibit April 30, 2009 10(D205) Refer to Index of Exhibit April 30, 2009 10(P149) Refer to Index of Exhibit (corrected reference from Tab 159 on May 14, 2009 in hearing) April 30, 2009 10(D341) pg.200-202 Refer to Index of Exhibit April 30, 2009 10(P203) Refer to Index of Exhibit May 4, 2009 10(P143) Refer to Index of Exhibit May 4, 2009 10(P145-P146) Refer to Index of Exhibit May 4, 2009 10(P136) Refer to Index of Exhibit May 4, 2009 10(P147-P148) Refer to Index of Exhibit May 4, 2009 10(P150) Refer to Index of Exhibit May 4, 2009 10(P153) Refer to Index of Exhibit May 4, 2009 10(P341) pg.407 Refer to Index of Exhibit May 4, 2009 10(P168) Refer to Index of Exhibit May 4, 2009 10(P163) Refer to Index of Exhibit May 4, 2009 10(P171-P172) Refer to Index of Exhibit May 4, 2009 10(P185) Refer to Index of
Exhibit May 4, 2009 10(P192) Refer to Index of Exhibit May 4, 2009 10(P177) Refer to Index of Exhibit May 4, 2009 10(P197) pg.64,65 Refer to Index of Exhibit May 4, 2009 10(P191) Refer to Index of Exhibit May 4, 2009 10(P197) pg.90-92 Refer to Index of Exhibit May 4, 2009 10(P341) pg.275-276 Refer to Index of Exhibit May 4, 2009 10(P134) pg.39-41 Refer to Index of Exhibit May 4, 2009 10(D134) Refer to Index of Exhibit May 4, 2009 10(D204) Refer to Index of Exhibit May 4, 2009 10(D204) pg.1 - 2 Refer to Index of Exhibit May 4, 2009 10(D156) Refer to Index of Exhibit May 5, 2009 10(D157) Refer to Index of Exhibit May 5, 2009 10(D152) Refer to Index of Exhibit May 5, 2009 10(D341) pg.963,964, 976,993, 413,82, 1008,271, 273,232, 233,234, 8-9,5-7, 34-37,382 Refer to Index of Exhibit May 5, 2009 10(D197) pg.23 Refer to Index of Exhibit May 5, 2009 10(D134) pg.39 Refer to Index of Exhibit May 5, 2009 10(D276) Refer to Index of Exhibit May 5, 2009 10(D277) Refer to Index of Exhibit May 5, 2009 10(D194) Confidential – Licence Agreement May 6, 2009 10(D204) Invoices & related documentation in its entirety May 6, 2009 10(P132) File history of CA Patent 2,095,473 May 6, 2009 10(P135) File history of CA Patent 2,098,324 May 6, 2009 10(P353) Refer to Index of Exhibit (filed in its entirety) May 6, 2009 10(D196) page 129 Figure 1 of 932 Patent May 6, 2009 10(D348) pg.200 Note outlining
Rotating Stuffing Box Idea; Mr Britton testifies the note is in his hand writing and the idea is his May 11, 2009 10(D196) pg.117-130 CA Patent 2088932, filed in entirety May 12, 2009 10(P357) Memo and notes in its entirety May 12, 2009 10(P344) Memo from Wellhead drive optimization team May 12, 2009 10(P356) pg.240 Diagram of a GrenCo drive head (stuffing box) May 12, 2009 10(D341) Drawings and hand writing identified as W.Torfs by Magda Torfs on pgs. 944, 969, 981-984, 989, 1001-1004, 1006-1013, 1040, 1041, 1043, 1044, 934, 935, 958 May 13, 2009 10(D346) Refer to Index page of Exhibit May 19, 2009
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-1236-01 STYLE OF CAUSE: WEATHERFORD CANADA LTD., WEATHERFORD
CANADA PARTNERSHIP, EDWARD GRENKE and GRENCO INDUSTRIES LTD. and CORLAC INC., NATIONAL-OILWELL CANADA LTD. and NATIONAL OILWELL INCORPORATED PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto , Ontario DATE OF HEARING: April 20-24 and 27-30, 2009 May 4-7, 11-14, 19-22 and 27-29, 2009 June 1, 2009
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER: PHELAN J. DATED: June 2, 2009 APPEARANCES: Mr. Robert MacFarlane Mr. Adam Bobker Mr. Joshua Spicer FOR THE PLAINTIFFS, WEATHERFORD CANADA LTD. and
WEATHERFORD
CANADA
PARTNERSHIP Mr. Bruce Stratton Mr. Vincent Man FOR THE PLAINTIFFS, EDWARD GRENKE and GRENCO INDUSTRIES LTD. Mr. Christopher Kvas Mr. William Regan Ms. Mala Joshi
FOR THE DEFENDANTS SOLICITORS OF RECORD: BERESKIN & PARR Barristers & Solicitors Toronto , Ontario FOR THE PLAINTIFFS, WEATHERFORD CANADA LTD. and
WEATHERFORD
CANADA
PARTNERSHIP
DIMOCK STRATTON LLP Barristers & Solicitors Toronto , Ontario FOR THE PLAINTIFFS, EDWARD GRENKE and GRENCO INDUSTRIES LTD. RIDOUT & MAYBEE LLP Barristers & Solicitors Toronto , Ontario
FOR THE DEFENDANTS
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.