Letourneau et al. v. Clearbrook Iron Works Ltd., (2004) 263 F.T.R. 186 (FC)

CourtFederal Court (Canada)
Case DateNovember 04, 2003
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(2004), 263 F.T.R. 186 (FC);2004 FC 1422

Letourneau v. Clearbrook Iron Works (2004), 263 F.T.R. 186 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] F.T.R. TBEd. NO.030

John Letourneau and Letourneau Life Rail Ltd. (plaintiffs) v. Clearbrook Iron Works Ltd. (defendant)

(T-1864-00; 2004 FC 1422)

Indexed As: Letourneau et al. v. Clearbrook Iron Works Ltd.

Federal Court

Hargrave, Prothonotary

October 14, 2004.

Summary:

The plaintiffs, John Letourneau and Letourneau Life Rail Ltd., owned a patent for a rail stanchion for use with modular concrete panel walls. The plaintiffs sued the defendant, Clearbrook Iron Works Ltd., for patent infringement. Clearbrook contended that the patent was invalid, and counterclaimed against the plaintiffs. Issues arose during discovery and two motions were filed. The defendant, Clearbrook, moved to have the plaintiff, John Letourneau, answer various questions, some of which he refused to answer and some of which were taken under advisement, provide further documents and give particulars of the first claim of the patent at issue. The plaintiffs moved for the continuation of the examination for discovery of Schellenberg, of the defendant, Clearbrook, to deal with undertakings, with questions taken under advisement and to answer questions that were refused.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court ordered that both discovery witnesses re-attend to answer questions as required by the reasons of the court and accompanying orders.

Evidence - Topic 4184

Witnesses - Privilege - Husband and wife - What constitutes a privileged communication - The plaintiffs, Letourneau and his company, owned a patent for a rail stanchion for use with modular concrete panel walls - The plaintiffs sued the defendant, Clearbrook, for patent infringement - Clearbrook contended that the patent was invalid because it was disclosed to the public - An issue arose as to whether conversations between John Letourneau, the alleged inventor, and his common law wife, relating to disclosure were privileged - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court held that the spousal privilege in s. 4(3) of the Canada Evidence Act did not apply to common law relationships and, even if it did, it could only be relied on by the wife in this situation - However, common law privilege applied in this case and the questions in issue did not need to be answered - See paragraphs 59 to 62.

Evidence - Topic 4241

Witness - Privilege - Lawyer-client communications - Privilege - General - The plaintiffs, Letourneau and his company, owned a patent for a rail stanchion for use with modular concrete panel walls - The plaintiffs sued the defendant, Clearbrook, for patent infringement - Clearbrook contended that the patent was invalid - During discovery, a witness for the defendant refused to answer certain questions relating to communications between the witness and certain non-parties on the basis of privilege - The plaintiffs argued that litigation privilege attached to communications conveyed to and by a lawyer for the purposes of litigation, but did not apply to relevant facts within the knowledge of a witness, regardless of the source of the information - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court determined what communications were subject to privilege - See paragraphs 99 to 111.

Evidence - Topic 4245.7

Witnesses - Privilege - Lawyer-client communications - Common interest privilege - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court discussed the concept of common interest privilege - See paragraphs 106 to 109.

Patents of Invention - Topic 1502

Grounds of invalidity - General - Onus and standard of proof - The plaintiffs, Letourneau and his company, sued the defendant for patent infringement - The defendant challenged the validity of the patent - The identification of the proper patentee was in issue - The defendant referred to the headnote of a Supreme Court of Canada case (S.C.R.) to the effect that the onus of proof was on the inventor not only because he was asserting an affirmative, that he was the inventor, but also because the subject matter of the allegations, concerning the patent, lay particularly within the inventor's knowledge - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court stated that "headnotes are always a dangerous source for any proposition" - The court stated that the case relied on did not particularly assist the defendant and was not on point - In any event, the court stated that the case at bar was not at a point at which the plaintiffs had to satisfy the court, on a balance of probabilities that the plaintiff was the true inventor because the onus was on the party attacking the patent and the statutory presumption of validity remained until the contrary was established - See paragraph 89.

Patents of Invention - Topic 8085

Practice - Pleadings - Particulars - The plaintiffs, Letourneau and his company, owned a patent for a rail stanchion for use with modular concrete panel walls - The plaintiffs sued the defendant, Clearbrook, for patent infringement - Clearbrook contended that the patent was invalid because it was disclosed to the public - Clearbrook sought to have John Letourneau, the alleged inventor, provide particulars of the first claim of the patent at issue (i.e., particulars of the features of the plaintiffs' patent which were not found in the rail produced by the defendant Clearbrook) - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court discussed when an order for further particulars would be granted, but refused to order further particulars in this case - See paragraphs 76 to 79.

Patents of Invention - Topic 8085

Practice - Pleadings - Particulars - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court stated that generally, where a defendant attacks the validity of a patent by asserting that a named inventor was not in fact the actual inventor, particulars will be ordered - See paragraph 90.

Patents of Invention - Topic 8106

Practice - Discovery - Examination - Questions which must be answered - The plaintiffs, Letourneau and his company, owned a patent for a rail stanchion for use with modular concrete panel walls - The plaintiffs sued the defendant, Clearbrook, for patent infringement - Clearbrook contended that the patent was invalid, and counterclaimed against the plaintiffs - During discovery, Clearbrook moved to have John Letourneau, the alleged inventor, answer certain questions relating to his background - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court discussed what questions could appropriately be asked of a discovery witness respecting his or her background - The court reviewed the specific questions at issue and determined which should be answered - See paragraphs 11 to 21.

Patents of Invention - Topic 8106

Practice - Discovery - Examination - Questions which must be answered - The plaintiffs, Letourneau and his company, owned a patent for a rail stanchion for use with modular concrete panel walls - The plaintiffs sued the defendant, Clearbrook, for patent infringement - Clearbrook contended that the patent was invalid, and counterclaimed against the plaintiffs - During discovery, Clearbrook moved to have John Letourneau, the alleged inventor, answer certain questions relating to the plaintiffs' devices (e.g., "life rails", "tilt-up life rails", "emergency life rails" and "bolt-on life rails") - The questions related to, inter alia, the advantages of the devices, their utility, how the devices worked, etc. - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court examined the specific questions and determined which had to be answered - See paragraphs 22 to 28.

Patents of Invention - Topic 8106

Practice - Discovery - Examination - Questions which must be answered - The plaintiffs, Letourneau and his company, owned a patent for a rail stanchion for use with modular concrete panel walls - The plaintiffs sued the defendant, Clearbrook, for patent infringement - Clearbrook contended that the patent was invalid, and counterclaimed against the plaintiffs - During discovery, Clearbrook moved to have John Letourneau, the alleged inventor, answer certain questions respecting four photographs taken and produced by Letourneau and his observations relating to the photographs - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court examined the specific questions and determined which should be answered - See paragraphs 29 to 30.

Patents of Invention - Topic 8106

Practice - Discovery - Examination - Questions which must be answered - The plaintiffs, Letourneau and his company, owned a patent for a rail stanchion for use with modular concrete panel walls - The plaintiffs sued the defendant, Clearbrook, for patent infringement - Clearbrook contended that the patent was invalid, and counterclaimed against the plaintiffs - During discovery, Clearbrook moved to have John Letourneau, the alleged inventor, answer certain questions and produce certain documents relating to whether the patent was invalid because it was disclosed and made available to the public in breach of s. 28.2 of the Patent Act - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court examined the specific questions and determined which questions had to be answered - See paragraphs 31 to 44.

Patents of Invention - Topic 8106

Practice - Discovery - Examination - Questions which must be answered - The plaintiffs, Letourneau and his company, owned a patent for a rail stanchion for use with modular concrete panel walls - The plaintiffs sued the defendant, Clearbrook, for patent infringement - Clearbrook contended that the patent was invalid - Clearbrook sought to discover Letourneau, the alleged inventor, respecting certain documents and information that Letourneau might have received from his patent agent (a lawyer) - Letourneau claimed privilege - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court noted that generally communications between a client and a patent agent were not privileged; however, where the patent agent was also a lawyer, the usual solicitor client privilege applied - The court examined the specific questions in issue and determined which questions needed to be answered - See paragraphs 45 to 58.

Patents of Invention - Topic 8106

Practice - Discovery - Examination - Questions which must be answered - The plaintiffs, Letourneau and his company, owned a patent for a rail stanchion for use with modular concrete panel walls - The plaintiffs sued the defendant, Clearbrook, for patent infringement - Clearbrook contended that the patent was invalid - During discovery, a witness for Clearbrook took questions under advisement - The plaintiffs sought to have these questions answered - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court discussed whether reasons must be given for not answering such questions at the time they were asked - The court determined whether the specific questions taken under advisement in this case had to be answered - See paragraphs 82 to 97.

Patents of Invention - Topic 8107

Practice - Discovery - Examination - Questions which need not be answered - [See Evidence - Topic 4184 and all Patents of Invention - Topic 8106 ].

Patents of Invention - Topic 8116

Practice - Discovery - Documents - Foreign and domestic patent files - The plaintiffs, Letourneau and his company, owned a patent for a rail stanchion for use with modular concrete panel walls - The plaintiffs sued the defendant, Clearbrook, for patent infringement - Clearbrook contended that the patent was invalid - Clearbrook sought to discover Letourneau, the alleged inventor, with respect to the prosecution of Letourneau's patent applications in Canada and the United States (i.e., file wrapper material) - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court discussed when file wrapper material might be relevant and ruled accordingly on which specific questions had to be answered - See paragraphs 63 to 66.

Patents of Invention - Topic 8117

Practice - Discovery - Documents - Patent agent files - [See fifth Patents of Invention - Topic 8106 ].

Practice - Topic 20

General principles and definitions - Use of headnotes - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court stated that "headnotes are always a dangerous source for any proposition" - See paragraph 89.

Practice - Topic 4585

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Privileged documents - Waiver - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court discussed whether there was a general doctrine of collateral waiver (i.e., where privilege was waived as to one document, production of all documents relating to the acts contained in the communication would be ordered) - See paragraphs 54 to 58.

Cases Noticed:

Scientific Games Inc. v. Pollard Banknote Ltd., [1997] F.T.R. Uned. 236; 73 C.P.R.(3d) 461 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 7].

Reading & Bates Construction Co. v. Baker Energy Resources Corp. et al. (1988), 25 F.T.R. 226 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 7].

Nolan v. Silex International Chemical Systems Inc. et al. (1997), 133 F.T.R. 66; 77 C.P.R.(3d) 212 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 8].

Sydney Steel Corp. v. Ship Omisalj et al., [1992] 2 F.C. 193; 52 F.T.R. 144 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 8].

Fiddler Enterprises Ltd. et al. v. Allied Shipbuilders Ltd. (2002), 215 F.T.R. 305 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 8].

Compagnie Financière et Commerciale du Pacifique v. Peruvian Guano Co. (1882), 11 Q.B.D. 55 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

McPhar Engineering Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Sharpe Instruments Ltd., [1956-60] Ex. C.R. 467; 35 C.P.R. 105, refd to. [para. 9].

Merck Frosst Canada Inc. et al. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) et al. (1994), 75 F.T.R. 97 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 11].

Goldfarb v. Gore (W.L.) & Associates Inc. (2001), 200 F.T.R. 184; 11 C.P.R.(4th) 129 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 11].

Canadian General Electric Co. v. Fada Radio Ltd., [1930] A.C. 97 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

Risi Stone Ltd. et al. v. Groupe Permacon Inc. (1994), 84 F.T.R. 20; 56 C.P.R.(3d) 381 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Unilever plc v. Procter and Gamble Inc. (1988), 23 C.P.R.(3d) 279 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 18].

Westinghouse Electric Corp. et al. v. Babcock & Wilcox Industries Ltd. et al. (1987), 15 F.T.R. 154; 15 C.P.R.(3d) 447 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 18].

Jackmorr Manufacturing Ltd. v. Waterloo Metal Stampings Ltd. (1985), 8 C.P.R.(3d) 271 (F.C.T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 26].

Consolboard Inc. v. MacMillan Bloedel (Saskatchewan) Ltd., [1981] 1 S.C.R. 504; 35 N.R. 390, refd to. [para. 27].

James River Corp. of Virginia v. Hallmark Cards Inc. et al. (1997), 126 F.T.R. 1; 72 C.P.R.(3d) 157 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 28].

Équipements d'Érablière CDL Inc. v. Ératube Inc. et al., [2001] F.T.R. Uned. 487; 2001 CFPI 107; 1001 FCT 107, refd to. [para. 28].

Kun Shoulder Rest Inc. v. Kun (Joseph) Violin and Bow Maker Inc. et al. (1997), 137 F.T.R. 163; 76 C.P.R.(3d) 488 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 29].

Baker Petrolite Corp. et al. v. Canwell Enviro-Industries Ltd. et al. (2002), 288 N.R. 201; 17 C.P.R.(4th) 478 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Lux Traffic Controls Ltd. v. Pike Signals Ltd., [1993] R.P.C. 107, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Graat, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 819; 45 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 34].

Simpson Timber Co. (Saskatchewan) Ltd. v. Bonville et al., [1986] 5 W.W.R. 180; 49 Sask.R. 105 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 42].

Liebmann v. Canada (Minister of National Defence) et al. (1994), 87 F.T.R. 154 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 44].

Galehead Inc. et al. v. Ship Trinity (1998), 160 F.T.R. 227 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 44].

Stevens v. Prime Minister (Can.), [1998] 4 F.C. 89; 228 N.R. 142 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Solosky v. Canada, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821; 30 N.R. 380, refd to. [para. 46].

Control Data Canada Ltd. v. Senstar Corp. (1986), 4 F.T.R. 80; 10 C.P.R.(3d) 284 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 47].

Control Data Canada Ltd. v. Senstar Corp. (1987), 10 F.T.R. 153; 13 C.P.R.(3d) 546 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 47].

Whirlpool Corp. et al. v. Camco Inc. et al. (1997), 127 F.T.R. 268; 72 C.P.R.(3d) 444 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 48].

Lumonics Research Ltd. v. Gould et al. (1983), 46 N.R. 483; 70 C.P.R.(2d) 11 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

Montreal Fast Print (1975) Ltd. v. Polylok Corp. (1983), 74 C.P.R.(2d) 34 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 48].

Wewayakum Indian Band v. Canada and Wewayakai Indian Band (1995), 99 F.T.R. 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 51].

Sherrard v. Jacob, [1965] N.I. 151 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

Risi Stone Ltd. et al. v. Groupe Permacon Inc., [1990] 3 F.C. 10; 34 F.T.R. 68 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 54].

Doland (George) Ltd. v. Blackburn Robson Coates and Co., [1972] 3 All E.R. 959; [1972] 1 W.L.R. 1338 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 55].

General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corp. v. Tanter; Ship Zephyr, Re, [1984] 1 W.L.R. 100 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 56].

LaPointe et al. v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) et al., [1987] 1 F.C. 445; 6 F.T.R. 134 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 57].

Miron and Valliere v. Trudel et al., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418; 181 N.R. 253; 81 O.A.C. 253, refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Fosty and Gruenke, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 263; 130 N.R. 161; 75 Man.R.(2d) 112; 6 W.A.C. 112, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Gruenke - see R. v. Fosty and Gruenke.

CAE Machinery Ltd. v. 29598505 Quebec Inc. et al., [2000] F.T.R. Uned. 100 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 63].

Richter Gedeon Vegyészeti Gyar RT v. Merck & Co. et al. (1996), 113 F.T.R. 1; 68 C.P.R.(3d) 8 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 63].

Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc. et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1024; 263 N.R. 150; 9 C.P.R.(4th) 168, refd to. [para. 64].

Foseco Trading AG et al. v. Canadian Ferro Hot Metal Specialties Ltd. (1991), 46 F.T.R. 81; 36 C.P.R.(3d) 35 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 64].

Merck Frosst Canada Inc. et al. v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al., [2000] F.T.R. Uned. 663; 8 C.P.R.(4th) 87 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 65].

Samsonite Corp. et al. v. Holiday Luggage Inc. (1988), 19 F.T.R. 161; 20 C.P.R.(3d) 291 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 65].

Eli Lilly & Co. et al. v. Apotex Inc., [2000] F.T.R. Uned. 320; 8 C.P.R.(4th) 413 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 68].

Denharco Inc. v. Forespro Inc. et al., [2002] F.T.R. Uned. 531 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 69].

Beatty Brothers Ltd. v. Lovell Manufacturing Co. and Maxwell Ltd. (1959), 30 C.P.R. 142 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 70].

Laboratoire Pentagone Ltée v. Parke, Davis & Co., [1968] S.C.R. 307, refd to. [para. 70].

Reliable Electric Co. v. Northern Telecom Ltd. (1986), 64 N.R. 150; 8 C.P.R.(3d) 224 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

McMaster Nitschke and Larimar v. Tamglass Oy (1981), 55 C.P.R.(2d) 69 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 77].

Ermanco Inc. v. Rexnord Canada Ltd. (1982), 67 C.P.R.(2d) 176 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 77].

Lapierre et al. v. Echochem International Inc., [2002] F.T.R. Uned. 418; 22 C.P.R.(4th) 536 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 79].

Glaxo Group Ltd. et al. v. Novopharm Ltd., [1999] F.T.R. Uned. 808; 3 C.P.R.(4th) 333 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 84].

Chingee et al. v. Chingee et al. (1998), 144 F.T.R. 156 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 88].

Chingee et al. v. Chingee et al. (1998), 149 F.T.R. 113 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 88].

McLeod Lake Indian Band v. Chingee - see Chingee et al. v. Chingee et al.

671905 Alberta Inc. et al. v. Q'Max Solutions Inc. (2003), 305 N.R. 137 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 89].

Traver Investments Inc. v. Union Carbide Corp., [1967] S.C.R. 196, refd to. [para. 89].

Contour Optik Inc. v. Hakim Optical Laboratory Ltd. (2001), 201 F.T.R. 152 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 90].

Amerace Corp. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Corp. (1975), 20 C.P.R.(2d) 105 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 90].

CAT Productions Ltd. v. Macedo (1984), 1 C.P.R.(3d) 517 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 91].

Cabot Safety Intermediate Corp. et al. v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. et al., [2000] F.T.R. Uned. 314 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 95].

Hayden Manufacturing Co. v. Canplas Industries Ltd. (1998), 173 F.T.R. 229; 83 C.P.R.(3d) 19 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 95].

Ductmate Industries Inc. v. Exanno Products Ltd. (1983), 75 C.P.R.(2d) 190 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 96].

Dupont Canada Inc. v. Emballage St-Jean ltée, [1999] F.T.R. Uned. 660 (T.D.), affd. (2000), 266 N.R. 366 (F.C.A.) refd to. [paras. 102, 106].

Global Petroleum Corp. et al. v. CBI Industries Inc. et al. (1998), 172 N.S.R.(2d) 326; 524 A.P.R. 326; 172 D.L.R.(4th) 689 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 103].

Susan Hosiery Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1969] C.T.C. 353; [1969] 2 Ex. C.R. 27, refd to. [para. 104].

Commercial Union Assurance Co. et al. v. M.T. Fishing Co. et al. (1999), 162 F.T.R. 74 (T.D.), affd. (1999), 244 N.R. 397 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 106].

Almecon Industries Ltd. v. Anchortek Ltd. (1998), 164 F.T.R. 90; 85 C.P.R.(3d) 30 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 107].

Pitney Bowes of Canada Ltd. et al. v. Canada (2003), 229 F.T.R. 277; 225 D.L.R.(4th) 747 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 107].

St. Joseph Corp. v. Canada (Minister of Public Works and Government Services) (2002), 218 F.T.R. 41; 17 C.P.R.(4th) 523 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 107].

UPM-Kymmene Corp. v. Repap Enterprises Inc. et al., [2001] O.T.C. Uned. B19 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 108].

Chmara v. Nguyen, [1993] 6 W.W.R. 286; 85 Man.R.(2d) 227; 41 W.A.C. 227 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 109].

Jones v. Smith, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 455; 236 N.R. 201; 120 B.C.A.C. 161; 196 W.A.C. 161; 169 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 109].

Lyell v. Kennedy (No. 2) (1883), 9 App. Cas. 81 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 111].

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Nu-Pharm Inc. (1996), 69 C.P.R.(3d) 474 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 123].

Westinghouse Electric Corp. et al. v. Babcock & Wilcox Industries Ltd. et al. (1987), 9 F.T.R. 285; 14 C.P.R.(3d) 214 (T.D. Protho.), revd. in part (1987), 15 F.T.R. 154; 15 C.P.R.(3d) 447 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 127].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, sect. 4(3) [para. 60].

Evidence Act (Can.) - see Canada Evidence Act.

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fox, Harold G., Canadian Patent Law and Practice (4th Ed. 1969), p. 99 [para. 27].

Hughes, Roger T., and Woodley, John H., Patents (1984) (Looseleaf Ed.), s. 16A [para. 31].

Manes, Ronald D., and Silver, Michael P., Solicitor-Client Privilege in Canadian Law (1993), pp. 32 [para. 104]; 65 [paras. 107, 108].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (1992), pp. 528 [para. 51]; 669 [para. 107].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), pp. 741 [para. 48]; 757 [para. 55].

Wigmore, John Henry, Evidence in Trials at Common Law (McNaughton Rev. 1961), pp. 527 to 528, s. 2285 [para. 61].

Counsel:

Paul Smith, for the plaintiff;

Kevin Wright, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Paul Smith Intellectual Property Law, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the plaintiff;

Davis & Co., Vancouver, British Columbia, for the defendant.

These motions were heard on November 4, 2003, at Vancouver, British Columbia, before Hargrave, Prothonotary, of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for order on October 14, 2004, as amended on February 11, 2005.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Conduct of Public Inquiries: Law, Policy, and Practice
    • 16 Junio 2009
    ...2003 SCC 20 .......................................................................... 303 Letourneau v. Clearbrook Iron Works Ltd. (2004), 263 F.T.R. 186, [2004] F.C.J. No. 1796, 2004 FC 1422 ...................................................................... 343 Lyons v. Toronto (Compu......
  • Universal Sales Ltd. et al. v. Edinburgh Assurance Co. et al., 2009 FC 150
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • 17 Diciembre 2008
    ...Houston et al., [2002] B.C.T.C. 1378; 2002 BCSC 1378 (Master), refd to. [para. 34]. Letourneau et al. v. Clearbrook Iron Works Ltd. (2004), 263 F.T.R. 186; 36 C.P.R.(4th) 228; 2004 FC 1422, refd to. [para. Laura K. Fric and Jennifer Fairfax, for the plaintiffs; Matthew Liben, for the defend......
1 cases
  • Universal Sales Ltd. et al. v. Edinburgh Assurance Co. et al., 2009 FC 150
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • 17 Diciembre 2008
    ...Houston et al., [2002] B.C.T.C. 1378; 2002 BCSC 1378 (Master), refd to. [para. 34]. Letourneau et al. v. Clearbrook Iron Works Ltd. (2004), 263 F.T.R. 186; 36 C.P.R.(4th) 228; 2004 FC 1422, refd to. [para. Laura K. Fric and Jennifer Fairfax, for the plaintiffs; Matthew Liben, for the defend......
1 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Conduct of Public Inquiries: Law, Policy, and Practice
    • 16 Junio 2009
    ...2003 SCC 20 .......................................................................... 303 Letourneau v. Clearbrook Iron Works Ltd. (2004), 263 F.T.R. 186, [2004] F.C.J. No. 1796, 2004 FC 1422 ...................................................................... 343 Lyons v. Toronto (Compu......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT