4 total
Motion to add counterclaim dismissed as duplicative, dependent on main action, and brought with unexplained delay.
The defendants brought a motion for leave to add a counterclaim seeking a declaration dismissing the plaintiffs' claims in a 2013 intellectual property action.
The defendants argued the counterclaim was necessary to mitigate the costs of preparing for trial on all issues.
The court dismissed the motion, finding the proposed counterclaim was duplicative of the statement of defence, dependent on the main action, and brought with unexplained delay eight years into the litigation.
Passing off application based on geographic mark Locust Lane dismissed for lacking acquired distinctiveness.
The applicant, a winery, sought a declaration that it owned the unregistered trademark LOCUST LANE and alleged passing off by a neighbouring winery under sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Trademarks Act.
The Federal Court held that the geographic term lacked inherent distinctiveness and the applicant had not shown acquired distinctiveness.
The application for passing off and related relief was dismissed.
The court awarded $7,500 in costs for an abandoned application, finding the requested amount unreasonable.
The respondent, Camtac, moved for costs of an abandoned application brought by the applicant, Fatigue.
Fatigue had sought to enforce letters rogatory for patent litigation in the U.S. Camtac sought $73,119.59 in costs for the abandoned application and $14,000 for the costs motion itself.
Fatigue conceded $7,500 for the abandoned application.
The court, applying Rule 57.01, found Camtac was entitled to costs but deemed the hours spent and rates charged by Camtac's Canadian and U.S. counsel excessive and unreasonable for an application that did not proceed past the notice stage.
The court awarded Camtac $7,500 in costs for the withdrawn application and interim motion, payable by Fatigue.
Appeal dismissed; Board reasonably interpreted regulation requiring doctoral program equivalency without considering subsequent clinical experience.
The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board upholding the College of Psychologists' refusal to register him for supervised practice.
The appellant held a PhD in Developmental Psychology that was not accredited by the Canadian Psychological Association.
The Board found that under the 2015 regulation, it could only consider the appellant's doctoral program itself, not his extensive subsequent clinical experience, to determine equivalency.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's interpretation of the regulation was reasonable, despite expressing concerns about the fairness of the rigid regulatory requirements.
