A five member panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal has released a decision in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, 2011 ONCA 764 on the scope of summary judgment under recently amended Rule 20 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure.
Tag Archives: Litigation
Copyright week at the Supreme Court of Canada
There are 5 copyright appeals being heard at the Supreme Court this week. All are being webcast live and the written submissions of the parties and interveners are available.
Continue reading Copyright week at the Supreme Court of Canada
Federal Court of Appeal releases Amazon.com decision
The Federal Court of Appeal has released its decision in Amazon.com on patentable subject matter (PDF). The Court held that determination of patentable subject matter must be based on a purposive construction of the claims and discussed the requirements for patentability but remanded the application back to the Commissioner for claim construction and reconsideration.
Continue reading Federal Court of Appeal releases Amazon.com decision
Ex parte injunction against author, Google, and GoDaddy for alleged defamation
In Nazerali v. Mitchell, 2011 BCSC 1581, the British Columbia Supreme Court issued an interim injunction against the author of an allegedly defamatory website, the hosting company, the domain name registrar (GoDaddy) and Google (for providing a cache of the site) on an ex parte basis. Continue reading Ex parte injunction against author, Google, and GoDaddy for alleged defamation
Federal Court of Appeal Judicial Appointment
The Department of Justice has announced that Justice Gauthier, currently of the Federal Court has been appointed to the Federal Court of Appeal, effectively immediately. Continue reading Federal Court of Appeal Judicial Appointment
Review of the Federal Courts Rules
The Federal Courts Rules Committee has announced a subcommittee for a global review of the Federal Courts Rules and released an accompanying discussion paper. The Notice to the Profession invites comments by January 6, 2012. Continue reading Review of the Federal Courts Rules
SCC releases Crookes v. Newton on hyperlinking
The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Crookes v. Newton, 2011 SCC 47. With three sets of reasons concurring in the result, the Court held that the use of a hyperlink cannot, by itself, amount to publication even if the hyperlink is followed and the defamatory content accessed.
FCA on authority of deputy judges
In a ruling released yesterday in Felipa v. Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal held that deputy judges of the Federal Court over the age of 75 have no authority under the Federal Courts Act.
Site mentioned on Slaw.ca
The blog, Slaw.ca mentioned the IPPractice.ca website today with regard to the Docket Browser feature. As identified by Ted Tjaden, the IPPractice.ca docket browser includes the docket entries, as well as related court decisions, appeals and the patented medicine where it can be identified. Ted Tjaden maintains a list of Canadian courts that maintain online accessible court dockets that would be helpful to anyone monitoring and investigating proceedings in other jurisdictions. Thanks for the mention!
SCC denies leave in “acrimonious” trademark discovery
This morning, the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave in Osmose-Penotox Inc. v. Société Laurentide Inc. (SCC #34175), where an appeal was sought from the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in 2011 FCA 31. The issues in the appeal appear to have been related to the scope of discovery in a bifurcated proceeding. The Federal Court of Appeal had written:
[10] With respect, I think the appellant fails to understand that the respondent’s missing letter to Rona, even if its content was assumed to be most favorable from the perspective of the appellant, is not relevant at the first stage of the proceedings. The determination of the validity of the registration of the appellant’s trade-mark entails a legal determination over which the beliefs of the respondent, whatever the self-serving or even incriminating terms in which they have been expressed in the response letter, carry no influence. The same holds true for the determination of the respondent’s liability should the trade-mark be found to be valid and to have been infringed.
…
[14] Before concluding, I think it is fair to say that the debate between the parties, which so far has been going on for at least eight years, has been acrimonious. … The parties should understand that the time has now come to move this case to trial without further interruption.
More information about these and other intellectual property proceedings at the Supreme Court are available on my Supreme Court litigation page.