6035558 Canada Inc. v. Unilin Beheer B.V., 2026 FCA 18
Justice LeBlanc; Justice Heckman; Justice Rochester - 2026-01-29
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
The appellants, appeal an order 2025 FC 552, dismissing an appeal of an order of an Associate Judge of that Court. The Associate Judge granted the respondents leave to serve and file a second amended statement of claim pursuant to Rule 75 of the Federal Courts Rules. The underlying action is one of alleged patent infringement relating to laminate flooring. … The Associate Judge, acting in her capacity as Case Management Judge, was satisfied that the amendments should be allowed on the basis that sufficient material facts had been pled to sustain the claim of patent infringement against the proposed individual defendants. … The appellants highlight that the Federal Court also noted that one “should only interfere in a decision made by a case management judge in the clearest case of misuse of judicial discretion given their familiarity with the issues and general expertise” … Such expressions or reformulations are in essence justifications for why such a highly deferential standard—palpable and overriding error—is appropriate for factually-suffused decisions made in the context of case management. Nevertheless, we recognize that the use of such expressions or reformulations can lend itself to confusion and thus it is best to stick to the language of the test as set out in Hospira. … we find that the Federal Court used such additional language as an expression of, or a euphemism for, the highly deferential standard of palpable and overriding error. … For the foregoing reasons, and despite the able submissions of counsel, we conclude that this appeal will be dismissed with costs.
Decision relates to:
- A-132-25 - 6035558 CANADA INC. aka MISSISSAUGA FLO et al. v. UNILIN BEHEER B.V. et al. which is an appeal from 2025 FC 552 in T-116-19