Angelcare Canada Inc. v. Munchkin, Inc., 2021 FC 238
Justice Roy - 2021-03-18
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
The Defendants object to the testimony of two witnesses presented by the Plaintiffs. Their testimony is to be struck from the record, according to Munchkin, because portions of testimonies that relate to nine documents do not meet the required discovery duties. ... The objection to the testimony was presented at the hearing on the basis that the corporate representative, Mr. Rahner, did not know anything about the document when asked during his discovery: the discovery obligations was not fulfilled, as additional information was not offered later on. ... I did not find it surprising that some of the presentations that are the subject of this motion were shown to Mr. Rahner on short notice and were in fact unknown to him. It seems to me that these were the types of cases where Rule 244 is an obvious instrument to seek further information from a witness on discovery. ... However, I reach a different outcome with respect to the portions of the testimony of Mr. Sweetbaum concerning the so-called “commercial relationship between the Plaintiffs”. ... Thus, Angelcare tried to use in evidence in the portion of the trial dedicated to infringement of the patents-in-suit and their validity a heavily redacted document without proper disclosure, thus running afoul of Rule 232.
Decision relates to:
- T-151-16 - ANGELCARE DEVELOPMENT INC. ET AL. v. MUNCHKIN, INC ET AL.
- A-92-21 - which is an appeal from this decision