Bauer Hockey Ltd. v. Sport Maska Inc., 2019 FC 1588
Justice Roy - 2019-12-11
Read full decision. Summary prepared by Alan Macek:
[Note: this decision is from 2019 but only posted recently] This is an appeal, pursuant to rule 51 of the Federal Courts Rules, from an order of Madam Prothonotary Tabib dated October 22, 2019. The matter before the Court pertains to the examination for discovery conducted of the corporate representative of the defendant (“CCM”) on December 5 and 6, 2018. ... In essence, Bauer asserts that if its “invention” was obvious, why did CCM have to collaborate with university researchers “to develop such features in its own helmets” (factum, para 5). That, somehow, could provide some information to negate the obviousness arguments CCM will present at trial. ... In the instant case, and as pointed out before, the plaintiff hopes that what it is asking for “can eventually be relevant to the obviousness allegations raised by CCM” (factum, para 3). Because Bauer does not know what it is looking for, its questions are both irrelevant and constitute a fishing expedition.
Decision relates to:
- T-123-15 - BAUER HOCKEY CORP. v. SPORT MASKA INC. D.B.A. REEBOK-CCM HOCKEY