Northern Reflections Ltd. v. Aritzia Inc., 2026 CanLII 71256, 2026 CanLII 71256
Justice Shannon - 2016-07-16
Read full decision. Summary prepared by Alan Macek:
UPON motion filed by Defendants and Plaintiff by Counterclaim (“Aritzia”) for a Protective Order, asserting protections over certain documents and information to be exchanged between the parties during the discovery process in this action … AND CONSIDERING the only remaining dispute on this motion is with respect to Aritzia’s request to protect certain confidential information by means of a “solicitor’s eyes only” (“SEO”) designation … [4] Because the question of a whether the parties are in fact competitors is an issue in the underlying trademark infringement action, I must leave the final factual determination on the issue to the trial judge. However, on the limited record before me, and while the evidence is equivocal as to whether the parties are currently competitors, I find that Northern Reflections operates in the same industry, claims to be Aritzia’s competitor in this litigation, and, at the very least, is an aspiring or would-be competitor. … I accept the evidence of Aritzia’s Senior Vice President and Corporate Controller, who stated concretely that the information at issue (and at the particular level of granularity at which it is sought), amounts to Aritzia’s “special sauce” … In accordance with the foregoing and upon considering the evidence, I find that Aritzia has satisfied the test for the issuance of a protective order that includes a solicitor’s eyes only designation.
Decision relates to:
- T-3743-25 - NORTHERN REFLECTIONS LTD. v. ARITZIA INC. et Al.