Surewerx USA Inc. v. Dentec Safety Specialists Inc., 2022 FC 1190
Justice Go - 2022-08-12
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
This is an appeal from an order of Case Management Judge [see 2022 FC 921] in which she granted a motion brought by Surewerx to challenge the designation of the identity of the manufacturer of Dentec as “Solicitor’s Eyes Only” information. ... Surewerx sought an order compelling Dentec to remove the SEO designation with regard to the manufacturer and to replace it instead with a Confidential Information designation, so that counsel for Surewerx may share the information with their client. ... Dentec submits that CMJ Tabib erred by allowing Surewerx to “resile from their agreement and circumvent the Protection Order” by (a) re-evaluating the evidence submitted in the Original Motion [for a Protective Order] to retroactively find that it supported only a prima facie case for issuance, and (b) applying the wrong test on a motion to challenge a SEO designation. For the reasons set out below, I find that CMJ Tabib did not err by applying the wrong test on a motion to challenge a SEO designation. I also find that the CMJ did not err in removing the SEO designation in question.
Decision relates to:
- T-1050-20 - SUREWERX USA INC. ET AL. v. DENTEC SAFETY SPECIALISTS, INC.