Block Parent Program of Canada Inc. v. Edmonton Block Parent Association
Source text
Block Parent Program of Canada Inc. v. Edmonton Block Parent Association Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2006-01-13 Neutral citation 2006 FC 29 File numbers T-95-03 Decision Content Date: 20060113 Docket: T-95-03 Citation: 2006 FC 29 IN THE MATTER OF AN INFRINGEMENT BY EDMONTONBLOCK PARENT ASSOCIATION - and - IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 53.2 OF THE TRADE-MARKS ACT(R.S.C. 1985, C. T-13) BETWEEN: BLOCK PARENT PROGRAM OF CANADA INC. Applicant - and - THE EDMONTONBLOCK PARENT ASSOCIATION Respondent AND BETWEEN: THE EDMONTONBLOCK PARENT ASSOCIATION Plaintiff by Counterclaim - and - BLOCK PARENT PROGRAM OF CANADA INC. and THE ALBERTABLOCK PARENT ASSOCIATION Defendants by Counterclaim REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER HUGESSEN J. [1] To the extent that the plaintiff's Rule 369 motion seeks to strike out the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, to which motion the defendant has not responded other than to seek a further delay (which is hereby refused), the motion is allowed and the said pleadings will be struck. [2] To the extent that the said motion seeks other relief on the merits, the Court's case law under Rule 210 requires that evidence be produced to support a default judgment; the affidavit produced herein does not supply such evidence and the motion will be otherwise dismissed with leave to the plaintiff to move again if so advised. ORDER THIS COURT ORDERS that: 1. The statement of Defence and Counterclaim are struck. 2. The plaintiff has leave to move again for judg…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Block Parent Program of Canada Inc. v. Edmonton Block Parent Association Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2006-01-13 Neutral citation 2006 FC 29 File numbers T-95-03 Decision Content Date: 20060113 Docket: T-95-03 Citation: 2006 FC 29 IN THE MATTER OF AN INFRINGEMENT BY EDMONTONBLOCK PARENT ASSOCIATION - and - IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 53.2 OF THE TRADE-MARKS ACT(R.S.C. 1985, C. T-13) BETWEEN: BLOCK PARENT PROGRAM OF CANADA INC. Applicant - and - THE EDMONTONBLOCK PARENT ASSOCIATION Respondent AND BETWEEN: THE EDMONTONBLOCK PARENT ASSOCIATION Plaintiff by Counterclaim - and - BLOCK PARENT PROGRAM OF CANADA INC. and THE ALBERTABLOCK PARENT ASSOCIATION Defendants by Counterclaim REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER HUGESSEN J. [1] To the extent that the plaintiff's Rule 369 motion seeks to strike out the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, to which motion the defendant has not responded other than to seek a further delay (which is hereby refused), the motion is allowed and the said pleadings will be struck. [2] To the extent that the said motion seeks other relief on the merits, the Court's case law under Rule 210 requires that evidence be produced to support a default judgment; the affidavit produced herein does not supply such evidence and the motion will be otherwise dismissed with leave to the plaintiff to move again if so advised. ORDER THIS COURT ORDERS that: 1. The statement of Defence and Counterclaim are struck. 2. The plaintiff has leave to move again for judgment on the merits if so advised. "James K. Hugessen" Judge Ottawa, Ontario Signed this 13th day of January 2006 FEDERAL COURT NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-95-03 STYLE OF CAUSE: BLOCK PARENT PROGRAM OF CANADA INC. v. THE EDMONTON BLOCK PARENT ASSOCIATION MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT THE APPEARANCE OF PARTIES REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER : HUGESSEN J. DATED: January 13, 2006 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: DIANNA KYLES FOR THE APPLICANT (BLOCK PARENT PROGRAM) SOLICITORS OF RECORD: DIANNA KYLES Mc CARTHY TÉTRAULT CALGARY ALBERTA FOR THE APPLICANT (BLOCK PARENT PROGRAM)
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca
Démocratie en surveillance c. Canada (Procureur général)
2024 CAF 75