Safe Gaming System Inc. v. Atlantic Lottery Corp. et al., (2013) 433 F.T.R. 41 (FC)

• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 13, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2013), 433 F.T.R. 41 (FC);2013 FC 217

Safe Gaming System v. Atlantic Lottery (2013), 433 F.T.R. 41 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2013] F.T.R. TBEd. JN.043

Safe Gaming System Inc. (plaintiff) v. Atlantic Lottery Corporation, Nova Scotia Gaming Corporation and Tech Link International Entertainment Limited (defendants)

(T-1043-12; 2013 FC 217; 2013 CF 217)

Indexed As: Safe Gaming System Inc. v. Atlantic Lottery Corp. et al.

Federal Court

Aronovitch, Prothonotary

March 4, 2013.

Summary:

Safe Gaming Systems Inc. commenced a patent infringement action respecting electronic gambling activities carried out by Nova Scotia Gaming Corporation (N.S. Gaming), Atlantic Lottery Corporation (ALC) and Tech Link International Entertainment Limited. NS Gaming and ALC moved to strike the action as against them, asserting that while the Federal Court had subject matter jurisdiction, it lacked personal jurisdiction over them as agents of the Crown in right of the Province of Nova Scotia.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court dismissed the motion.

Courts - Topic 4029

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Patents of invention - Safe Gaming Systems Inc. commenced a patent infringement action respecting electronic gambling activities carried out by Nova Scotia Gaming Corporation (N.S. Gaming), Atlantic Lottery Corporation (ALC) and another - NS Gaming and ALC moved to strike the action as against them, asserting that while the Federal Court had subject matter jurisdiction, it lacked personal jurisdiction over them as agents of the Crown in right of the Province of Nova Scotia - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court dismissed the motion - Coupled with the statutory grant of jurisdiction in all cases involving remedies under the Patent Act, s. 2.1 of the Act removed any doubt that the court had concurrent jurisdiction in cases seeking a remedy under the Act against a provincial Crown - Alternatively, the defendants had not met the heavy burden of satisfying the court that it was plain and obvious or free from doubt that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the action.

Courts - Topic 4073

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Practice - Striking out pleadings - [See Courts - Topic 4029 ].

Courts - Topic 4210

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Particular matters - Claims by individuals against provincial Crown - [See Courts - Topic 4029 ].

Practice - Topic 2241

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Lack of jurisdiction - [See Courts - Topic 4029 ].

Cases Noticed:

Greeley v. Ship Tami Joan (1996), 113 F.T.R. 66 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 11].

Trainor Surveys (1974) Ltd. v. New Brunswick et al., [1990] 2 F.C. 168; 35 F.T.R. 228 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 11].

Dableh v. Ontario Hydro, [1990] F.C.J. No. 913, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Eldorado Nuclear Ltd.; R. v. Uranium Canada Ltd., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 551; 50 N.R. 120; 1 O.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 14, footnote 4].

Piercey Estate et al. v. Atlantic Lottery Corp. (2008), 282 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 217; 868 A.P.R. 217; 2008 NLTD 202, refd to. [para. 14, footnote 4].

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. 15].

Ordon et al. v. Grail, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 437; 232 N.R. 201; 115 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 24, footnote 5].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 26].

Hodgson et al. v. Ermineskin Indian Band et al. (2000), 180 F.T.R. 285; 2000 CanLII 15066 (T.D.), affd. (2000), 267 N.R. 143 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Statutes Noticed:

Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4, sect. 2.1 [para. 19].

Counsel:

Nathaniel Lipkus and Max Morgan, for the plaintiff;

Christine Pallota, for the defendants.

Solicitors of Record:

Gilbert's LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the plaintiff;

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the defendants.

This motion was heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on December 13, 2012, by Aronovitch, Prothonotary, of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for order on March 4, 2013.