Rachalex Holdings Inc. v. W & M Wire & Metal Products Ltd.
Source text
Rachalex Holdings Inc. v. W & M Wire & Metal Products Ltd. Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2007-01-17 Neutral citation 2007 FC 33 File numbers T-1377-04 Decision Content Date: 20070117 Docket: T-1377-04 Citation: 2007 FC 33 BETWEEN: RACHALEX HOLDINGS INC. and TYRONE NAGTHALL Plaintiffs and W & M WIRE & METAL PRODUCTS LTD. and 921410 ONTARIO LTD. c.o.b. THE DISPLAY BANK Defendants REASONS FOR ORDER (Delivered from the bench in Toronto, Ontario on January 12, 2007) HUGESSEN J. [1] I am not satisfied that the proposed new evidence which is sought to be introduced for the hearing of the coming summary judgment motion is relevant. It deals largely with alleged issues of obviousness and inutility of the patent in suit; those issues have not been raised by the statement of defence or otherwise pleaded. It also purports to introduce a large number of pieces of prior art, none of which have previously been pleaded. [2] At the time that this motion was brought the issues both in the action as a whole and in the summary judgment motion had been joined. Both sides had filed memoranda of fact and law preparatory to the hearing of the summary judgment but that hearing had been adjourned due to the withdrawal of defendants’ former solicitor. [3] To allow the present motion would necessarily result in further substantial delay, not the least of which would be the necessity for amendments to the pleadings, possible further discoveries and cross-examinations on affidavits. All …
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Rachalex Holdings Inc. v. W & M Wire & Metal Products Ltd. Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2007-01-17 Neutral citation 2007 FC 33 File numbers T-1377-04 Decision Content Date: 20070117 Docket: T-1377-04 Citation: 2007 FC 33 BETWEEN: RACHALEX HOLDINGS INC. and TYRONE NAGTHALL Plaintiffs and W & M WIRE & METAL PRODUCTS LTD. and 921410 ONTARIO LTD. c.o.b. THE DISPLAY BANK Defendants REASONS FOR ORDER (Delivered from the bench in Toronto, Ontario on January 12, 2007) HUGESSEN J. [1] I am not satisfied that the proposed new evidence which is sought to be introduced for the hearing of the coming summary judgment motion is relevant. It deals largely with alleged issues of obviousness and inutility of the patent in suit; those issues have not been raised by the statement of defence or otherwise pleaded. It also purports to introduce a large number of pieces of prior art, none of which have previously been pleaded. [2] At the time that this motion was brought the issues both in the action as a whole and in the summary judgment motion had been joined. Both sides had filed memoranda of fact and law preparatory to the hearing of the summary judgment but that hearing had been adjourned due to the withdrawal of defendants’ former solicitor. [3] To allow the present motion would necessarily result in further substantial delay, not the least of which would be the necessity for amendments to the pleadings, possible further discoveries and cross-examinations on affidavits. All of this in my view would cause a prejudice to plaintiff which could not be adequately compensated by an award of costs. [4] The motion will be dismissed with costs. “James K. Hugessen” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-1377-04 STYLE OF CAUSE: RACHALEX HOLDINGS INC. et al v. W & M WIRE & METAL PRODUCTS LTD. et al PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 12, 2007 REASONS FOR ORDER: HUGESSEN J. DATED: JANUARY 17, 2007 APPEARANCES: CHRISTOPHER TORTORICE CHRISTINE M. PALLOTTA FOR THE PLAINTIFFS ELLIS FABIAN FOR THE DEFENDANTS SOLICITORS OF RECORD: BERESKIN & PARR BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS TORONTO, ONTARIO FOR THE PLAINTIFFS FABIAN & KAYE BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS TORONTO, ONTARIO FOR THE DEFENDANTS
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca