Mediatube Corp. v. Bell Canada, 2016 FC 1066
Justice Locke - 2016-09-21
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
This Order is made in the context of the trial of an action for patent infringement. The defendant a) seeks an Order under Rule 289, ordering that the plaintiffs include, as part of their read-in evidence under Rule 288, corrections to answers to various questions posed during examinations for discovery of the defendant; b) objects to the plaintiffs’ proposal to read in refusals by the defendant to provide answers to various questions during their examinations for discovery; and c) seeks to limit the evidentiary effect of any documents included by the plaintiffs with any discovery answers that they read in as evidence under Rule 288. ... This court orders that: 1. For any of the defendant’s discovery answers that the plaintiffs read-in to evidence, the plaintiffs shall also include as part of their read-ins any corrections that have been provided by the defendant. 2. Refusals by the defendant to answer certain questions on discovery may not be read in as evidence unless the refusal was later replaced with an answer. 3. Documents included in the plaintiffs’ read-ins are not thereby evidence of the truth of their contents.
Decision relates to:
- T-705-13 - MEDIATUBE CORP. ET AL v. BELL CANADA ET AL