Excalibre Oil Tools Ltd. v. Advantage Products Inc., 2016 FC 1130
Justice Manson - 2016-10-11
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
[Note this decision is from 2016 but only recently published] This Order is made in the context of the trial of an action for patent infringement [see 2016 FC 1279]. The Defendants in Court action T-1741-08 [the API parties]: seek an Order under Rule 289 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, ordering that the Plaintiffs [the Excalibre parties] include, as part of their read-in evidence under Rule 288, additional portions of the transcripts relating to questions and answers given by James Weber and Lynn Tessier during examinations for discovery of the Defendants; b) object to the Plaintiffs’ proposal to read-in questions and answers given by Lynn Tessier at pages 80 to 82 of the discovery transcript, or in the alternative, that additional read-ins on page 82 of that transcript be added. ... Bearing in mind the guiding principles above, I find that: the qualifying read-ins at 123:27-124:22 should not be allowed, as they are a distinct set of questions that do not clarify or add context to the questions asked and annexed as the Plaintiffs’ read-ins; the qualifying read-in at 132:4-12 should be allowed, as it is a connected thought that clarifies the read-ins and provides necessary context; the read-ins at 80:15-82:1, other than lines 80:21-27 and 81:1 which are hearsay and should be excluded, were properly put to the witness at trial; the qualifying read-ins at 82:2-17 are not allowed, because they are both hearsay and not required for context; the qualifying read-in at 182:7-15 are allowed, as they provide context and help clarify the associated read-ins.
Decision relates to:
- T-1741-08 - EXCALIBER OIL TOOLS LTD ET AL v. ADVANTAGE PRODUCTS INC ET AL
- T-1946-09 - ADVANTAGE PRODUCTS INC., MSI MACHINEERING SOLUTIONS INC. AND MSI MACHINEERIN