3 total
Court fixes partial indemnity costs after unsuccessful summary judgment motion.
Following the dismissal of a motion for partial summary judgment in an intellectual property dispute, the court determined the appropriate costs award.
The successful plaintiffs sought elevated costs exceeding $200,000, alleging the motion was unreasonable.
The court held that although the motion was aggressive, it was not unreasonable and costs should therefore be awarded on a partial indemnity basis.
After reviewing hourly rates, fees, and disbursements under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, several claimed amounts were reduced, including photocopying, travel expenses, and expert-related disbursements.
The court fixed total costs at $137,382 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.
Motion for partial summary judgment dismissed as 'group enterprise' and breach of confidence claims require trial.
The defendants brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the claims against three of the four corporate defendants, arguing they were not parties to the relevant agreements and that the 'group enterprise' doctrine does not exist in Canadian law.
The court found that the 'group enterprise' concept exists as a carefully limited exception to the corporate veil principle.
Given the complex evidence of inter-corporate connections and the equitable breach of confidence claims, the court concluded there were genuine issues requiring trial and declined to use its enhanced fact-finding powers.
The motion for partial summary judgment was dismissed.
Restrictive covenant interpreted narrowly; no breach where product dealings occurred outside Canada.
The applicants sought an injunction to enforce a restrictive covenant in a settlement agreement arising from earlier patent litigation.
They alleged the respondent breached the covenant by inducing others in Canada to manufacture and sell the patented products outside Canada.
The court held the covenant unambiguously prohibited making, constructing, using, or selling the products in Canada, or inducing others to do those acts in Canada.
It rejected the broader interpretation that would prohibit inducing others in Canada to deal with the products anywhere in the world.
Finding no evidence that the products were made, used, or sold in Canada, the court concluded the respondent did not breach the agreement.
