Reading & Bates Construction Co. v. Baker Energy Resources Co., Baker Marine Co. and Gaz Inter-Cité Quebec Inc., (1988) 25 F.T.R. 226 (TD)

• Judge: McNair, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 19, 1988
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1988), 25 F.T.R. 226 (TD)

Reading & Bates v. Baker Energy (1988), 25 F.T.R. 226 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Reading & Bates Construction Co. and Reading & Bates Horizontal Drilling Ltd. (plaintiffs) v. Baker Energy Resources Corporation and Baker Marine Corporation (defendants)

(T-1879-83)

Indexed As: Reading & Bates Construction Co. v. Baker Energy Resources Co., Baker Marine Co. and Gaz Inter-Cité Quebec Inc.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

McNair, J.

November 10, 1988.

Summary:

The defendant infringed the plaintiff's patent. A reference was to be held respecting profits made by the defendant. The plaintiffs sought answers to certain questions put to the defendant's officer on his examination for discovery. The Associate Senior Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, ordered that the officer answer the questions and produce certain documents. The defendant appealed.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the appeal and ruled on which questions must be answered and what documents must be produced.

For a more detailed summary of the facts and reports of other points in issue in the litigation see 2 F.T.R. 241, 7 F.T.R. 117, 11 F.T.R. 114, 19 F.T.R. 214 and 79 N.R. 351.

Courts - Topic 2583

Registrars and prothonotaries - Appeals from - Scope of review - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that "it is now authoritatively settled as a rule of practice that an appeal from a discretionary order, whether it be that of a prothonotary or a motions judge, should be treated as an appeal rather than a rehearing on the merits, and the order appealed from should be interfered with only when it can be demonstrated that such order was clearly wrong in law or on the facts" - See paragraph 6.

Patents of Invention - Topic 8105

Practice - Discovery - Examination - Range of - The defendant infringed the plaintiff's patent - A reference was to be held to determine the profits made by the defendant because of the infringement - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, ruled on what questions the defendant was obliged to answer during examination for discovery and what documents must be produced - See paragraphs 11 to 32.

Patents of Invention - Topic 8115

Practice - Discovery - Documents - General - [See Patents of Invention - Topic 8105 above].

Practice - Topic 4251

Discovery - Examination - Range of - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, discussed what documents must be produced on discovery and what questions must be answered - See paragraph 10.

Practice - Topic 4570

Discovery - Documents - What documents must be produced - General principles - [See Practice - Topic 4251 above].

Cases Noticed:

Reading & Bates Construction Co. v. Baker Energy Resources Corporation (1987), 12 C.I.P.R. 260, refd to. [para. 5].

Algonquin Mercantile Corporation v. Dart Industries Canada Ltd. (1984), 55 N.R. 291; 5 C.I.P.R. 40 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Marleen Investments Ltd. v. McBride (1979), 23 O.R.(2d) 125 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

Trigg v. MI Movers International (1987), 13 C.P.C.(2d) 150 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

Canex Placer Ltd. v. A.G. B.C. (1976), 63 D.L.R.(3d) 282 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

Compagnie Financiere et Commerciale du Pacifique v. Peruvian Guano Co. (1882), 11 Q.B.D. 55 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Algonquin Mercantile Corp. v. Dart Industries Ltd. (1984), 82 C.P.R.(2d) 36, affd. (1984), 1 C.P.R.(3d) 242, refd to. [para. 10].

Armstrong Cork Canada Ltd. v. Domco Industries Ltd. (1983), 48 N.R. 157; 71 C.P.R.(2d) 5 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Smith, Kline & French Ltd. v. A.G. Can. (1982), 67 C.P.R.(2d) 103 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 10].

Carnation Foods Co. Ltd. v. Amfac Foods Inc. (1982), 63 C.P.R.(2d) 203 (F.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 10, 18].

Beloit Ltee/Ltd. v. Valmet Oy (1981), 60 C.P.R.(2d) 145 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 10].

Teledyne Industries Inc. v. Lido Industrial Products Ltd. (1982), 68 C.P.R.(2d) 204 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [paras. 14, 15, 16, 17].

Peter Pan Manufacturing Corporation v. Corsets Silhouette Ltd., [1963] R.P.C. 45, refd to. [para. 16].

Invacare Corporation v. Everest & Jennings Canadian Ltd., [1984] 1 F.C. 856; 55 N.R. 73 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Rules, rule 336(5) [para. 4]; rule 465(15) [para. 8].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fox, Canadian Patent Law and Practice (4th Ed.), p. 456 [para. 9].

Counsel:

S. Lane, for the plaintiffs;

S. Anissimoff and E.M. McMahon, for the defendants.

Solicitors of Record:

Wooley, Dale & Dingwall, Toronto, Ontario, for the plaintiffs;

MacBeth & Johnson, Toronto, Ontario, for the defendants.

This appeal was heard in Toronto, Ontario, on September 19, 1988, before McNair, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on November 9, 1988, which was filed on November 10, 1988: