Scammell v. Equitable Bank, 2024 FC 1654
Associate Justice Ring - 2024-10-21
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
The Defendant, Equitable Bank, has brought a motion in writing, pursuant to Rules 75 and 369 of the Rules, for leave to serve and file an Amended Reply to Defence to Counterclaim. EB’s proposed amendment asserts that Nevada and US federal laws govern an agreement by which the Plaintiff granted a licence regarding the subject patent to a third party, who in turn granted a sub-licence to EB. EB asserts that neither the applicable foreign law, nor Canadian law, permit the rescission of the licence as pled by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff, Scammell, opposes the motion on the basis that EB’s proposed pleading of foreign law does not allow her or the Court to appreciate the issues raised by the pleading, and does not provide sufficient particularity to be a sustainable pleading. ... Having considered the motion records filed on behalf of the parties, and for the reasons that follow, I conclude that EB’s motion for leave to amend its Reply to Defence to Counterclaim should be allowed, but on the strict condition that EB must include further particulars of the foreign law in its amended pleading, in accordance with these Reasons.
Decision relates to:
- T-881-24 - COLLEEN SCAMMELL v. EQUITABLE BANK