Netbored Inc. v. Avery Holdings Inc. et al.,

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: Gibson, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Citation: 2005 FC 490,(2005), 272 F.T.R. 131 (FC)
• Date: 05 April 2005

Netbored Inc. v. Avery Holdings (2005), 272 F.T.R. 131 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] F.T.R. TBEd. AP.043

Netbored Inc. (plaintiff) v. Avery Holdings Inc., Sean Eren, Susan Eren, Susan Katz, Corey Katz and Binary Environments Ltd. (defendants)

(T-2289-03; 2005 FC 490)

Indexed As: Netbored Inc. v. Avery Holdings Inc. et al.

Federal Court

Gibson, J.

April 12, 2005.

Summary:

The plaintiff sued the defendants, seeking damages and injunctive relief for copyright infringement and for other causes of action "incidental and/or ancillary ... as against each of the defendants". The defendants sought an order striking elements of the statement of claim.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court, in a decision not reported in this series of reports, allowed the motion in part. The Prothonotary struck paragraphs 1(a)(i) to (iv), 1(b)(i) and (ii), 1(c)(v) and 28. The plaintiff moved to appeal.

The Federal Court allowed the motion in part. The court reinstated paragraphs 1(c)(v) and 28.

Copyright - Topic 6063

Practice - Pleadings - Striking out - [See Courts - Topic 4012 ].

Courts - Topic 4012

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - General - Claims outside Court's jurisdiction - The plaintiff sued the defendants, seeking damages and injunctive relief for copyright infringement and for other causes of action "incidental and/or ancillary ... as against each of the defendants" - The defendants sought an order striking elements of the statement of claim - A Prothonotary allowed the motion in part and struck, inter alia, paragraphs 1(a)(i) to (iv) and 1(b)(i) and (ii) - The plaintiff moved to appeal - The Federal Court dismissed the motion with respect to those paragraphs - This was an action for infringement of the plaintiff's copyright - The plaintiff's allegations in the impugned paragraphs related to breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty and the like were not advanced for the purpose of establishing infringement - They were advanced for the purpose of obtaining relief in respect of those breaches themselves - Accordingly, the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain them - See paragraph 24.

Courts - Topic 4053

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Copyright - [See Courts - Topic 4012 ].

Cases Noticed:

Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425; 149 N.R. 273 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6, footnote 2].

Pompey (Z.I.) Industrie et al. v. Ecu-Line N.V. et al., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 450; 303 N.R. 201; 2003 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 6, footnote 3].

Merck & Co. v. Apotex Inc. (2003), 30 C.P.R.(4th) 40 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6, footnote 4].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 8, footnote 6].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.

First Canadians' Constitution Draft Committee et al. v. Canada (2004), 317 N.R. 352 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 7].

MIL Davie Inc. v. Société d'exploitation et de développement d'Hibernia ltée (1998), 226 N.R. 369 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 8].

Miida Electronics Inc. v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. and ITO-International Terminal Operators Ltd., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752; 68 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 11, footnote 9].

Blue Crest Music Inc. et al. v. Compo Co., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 357; 29 N.R. 296, refd to. [para. 21, footnote 12].

Blacktop (R.W.) Ltd. et al. v. Artec Equipment Co. et al. (1991), 50 F.T.R. 225; 39 C.P.R.(3d) 432 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 23, footnote 13].

Kellogg's Co. of Canada v. Kellogg, [1941] S.C.R. 242, refd to. [para. 23, footnote 14].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sgayias, David, Kinnear, Meg, Rennie, Donald J., and Saunders, Brian J., Federal Court Practice (2005), pp. 366, 367 [para. 6, footnote 5].

Counsel:

Winkler and Simpson, for the plaintiff;

Hayes, for the defendants.

Solicitors of Record:

Aird & Berlis LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the plaintiff;

Ogilvy Renault LLP, Markham, Ontario, for the defendants.

This motion was heard on April 5, 2005, at Toronto, Ontario, before Gibson, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on April 12, 2005.