Halford et al. v. Seed Hawk Inc. et al., 2004 FC 455

• Judge: Pelletier, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 10, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2004 FC 455;(2004), 253 F.T.R. 122 (FC)

Halford v. Seed Hawk Inc. (2004), 253 F.T.R. 122 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] F.T.R. TBEd. AP.021

James W. Halford and Vale Farms Ltd. (plaintiffs) v. Seed Hawk Inc., Pat Beaujot, Norbert Beaujot, Brian Kent and Simplot Canada Limited (defendants)

(T-2406-93; 2004 FC 455)

Indexed As: Halford et al. v. Seed Hawk Inc. et al.

Federal Court

Pelletier, J.

March 25, 2004.

Summary:

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for infringement of their seeder patent. The defendants raised the validity of the claims of the patent both as a defence and as a counterclaim.

The Federal Court, in a decision reported at 246 F.T.R. 1, dismissed the action and counterclaim. The defendants moved for reconsideration on the ground that a matter which should have been dealt with was overlooked.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion.

Courts - Topic 2188

Jurisdiction - Loss or termination of jurisdiction upon fulfilling function (functus officio) - Civil trials - Defendants moved for reconsideration of a decision on the ground that a matter which should have been dealt with was overlooked - Specifically, they argued that the trial judge erred in dismissing the counterclaim for invalidity in that he did not deal with a ground of invalidity raised in the course of the trial and in finding that another ground of invalidity was not pleaded - The Federal Court dismissed the motion, holding that it was functus officio - Final judgment disposing of all of the issues in the litigation had been signed - Rule 397, the slip rule, did not apply - Rule 397 granted power to correct slips and oversights in the preparation of the judgment document - It did not grant power to correct errors in the process leading to the issuance of the judgment - See paragraphs 6 to 13.

Courts - Topic 2188

Jurisdiction - Loss or termination of jurisdiction upon fulfilling function (functus officio) - Civil trials - Defendants moved for reconsideration of a decision - They requested, inter alia, that the court allow an amendment to the pleadings to make them conform to the evidence and then dispose of the counterclaim in light of the amended pleadings - Rule 75(1) provided that "Subject to subsection (2) and rule 76, the Court may, on motion, at any time, allow a party to amend a document, on such terms as will protect the rights of all parties." - The Federal Court held that the words "at any time" did not allow a party to circumvent the doctrine of functus officio simply by moving to amend the pleadings after judgment - A trial judge had a broad discretion to allow amendments to the pleadings at any time prior to judgment, but that right was extinguished after judgment had been signed - At that point, there had been a final adjudication of the parties' rights which could only be attacked upon appeal - See paragraphs 14 to 16.

Practice - Topic 2139

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - After judgment - [See second Courts - Topic 2188 ].

Practice - Topic 5465

Judgments and orders - Finality of judgments and orders - Where judge functus officio - [See both Courts - Topic 2188 ].

Practice - Topic 6103

Judgments and orders - Amendment, rescission and variation of judgments and orders - Slip rule - Correction of errors or omissions - [See first Courts - Topic 2188 ].

Cases Noticed:

Chandler v. Alberta Association of Architects, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 848; 99 N.R. 277; 101 A.R. 321, refd to. [para. 6].

Doucet-Boudreau et al. v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education) et al. (2003), 312 N.R. 1; 218 N.S.R.(2d) 311; 687 A.P.R. 311; 2003 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 6]

Twinn et al. v. Canada (No. 3) (1987), 12 F.T.R. 136 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 10].

Sawridge Band of Indians v. Canada - see Twinn et al. v. Canada (No. 3).

Klockner Namasco Corp. v. The Federal Hudson, [1991] F.C.J. No. 1073 (T.D.), not folld. [para. 11].

Arjun v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 179 F.T.R. 287 (T.D.), dist. [para. 11].

Nordolm I/S v. Canada (1996), 107 F.T.R. 317 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 11].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Rules, 1998, rule 75 [para. 14]; rule 397(1), rule 397(2) [para. 8].

Counsel:

Steven Raber, Dean Giles and Edward Herman, for the plaintiffs;

Alexander Macklin, Doak Horne and Irene Bridger, for the defendant, Seed Hawk;

Wolfgang Riedel, for the defendant, Simplot.

Solicitors of Record:

Fillmore Riley, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the plaintiffs;

Gowlings, Calgary, Alberta, for the defendant, Seed Hawk;

Meighen, Haddad & Co., Brandon, Manitoba, for the defendant, Simplot.

This motion was heard at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on March 10, 2004, by Pelletier, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on March 25, 2004.