Belanger Inc. and Belanger v. Keglonada Investments Ltd. and Buller Buff Co., (1986) 1 F.T.R. 238 (TD)

• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 20, 1986
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1986), 1 F.T.R. 238 (TD)

Belanger Inc. v. Keglonada Inv. Ltd. (1986), 1 F.T.R. 238 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Belanger Inc. and Belanger v. Keglonada Investments Ltd. and Buller Buff Co. Inc.

Indexed As: Belanger Inc. and Belanger v. Keglonada Investments Ltd. and Buller Buff Co.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Giles, Associate Senior Prothonotary

February 20, 1986.

Summary:

The plaintiff brought an action in 1982 against the defendants alleging conduct by both defendants calculated to induce persons to infringe the plaintiff's patents. The defendants subsequently applied to the Commissioner of Patents for a compulsory licence or revocation of the two patents in issue in these proceedings. In 1985 the plaintiff applied for an order for a final time extension for filing of a statement of defence by the defendants. The defendants also applied for a stay of proceedings or in the alternative for an order striking out certain paragraphs of the plaintiff's statement of claim or an order for further particulars.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, ordered the plaintiff to furnish particulars and ordered the defendant to file a statement of defence within 30 days of the filing of the particulars.

Practice - Topic 1901

Particulars - General - A plaintiff brought an action against the defendants alleging conduct by the defendants calculated to induce infringement of the plaintiff's patents - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, granted the order for particulars - The court stated that particulars will be ordered only if they are within the knowledge of the other party and they are necessary for the demanding party to plead - See paragraphs 26 to 33.

Practice - Topic 5277

Trials - General - Stay of proceedings - When available - A plaintiff brought an action against the defendants alleging conduct by the defendants calculated to induce infringement of the plaintiff's patents - The defendants applied to the Commissioner of Patents for a compulsory licence or revocation of the patents - The defendant subsequently applied to the Federal Court for a stay of proceedings alleging an overlap of issues between the actions - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application - The court discussed the factors to be considered in granting the stay - The court stated that the defendants failed to satisfy the court that it was in the interest of justice that the action be stayed, that its continuance would be an abuse of judicial process, or that the defendants would be prejudiced by its continuation - See paragraphs 10 to 16.

Cases Noticed:

Phillip Morris Inc. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., [1982] 1 F.C.R. 753, consd. [para. 11].

Union Carbide et al. v. W.R. Grace & Co. et al., 70 C.P.R.(2d) 206, refd to. [para. 13].

Dominion Mail Order Products Corp. v. Weider, 28 C.P.R.(2d) 27, appld. [para. 16].

Physicians' Services Inc. v. Cass, [1971] 2 O.R. 626, refd to. [para. 28].

Fairburn v. Sage, 56 O.L.R. 462, appld. [para. 28].

Counsel:

Appearances: J. Morrissey, for the plaintiff;

G. Zimmerman, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Messrs. Smart & Biggar, Toronto, Ontario, for the plaintiff;

Messrs. Sim, Hughes, Toronto, Ontario, for the defendant.

This application was heard on January 20, 1986, at Toronto, Ontario, before Giles, Associate Senior Prothonotary, of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on February 20, 1986: