Marc Crandall

The applicant, a plaintiff in a proposed class action in British Columbia, sought a declaration that a sealing order issued in a related Ontario proceeding did not apply to an affidavit he had obtained from the public court record before the sealing order was formalized.

The respondents had inadvertently included confidential information in a publicly filed motion record.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the sealing order applied to the inadvertently disclosed information and that confidentiality could be restored since the applicant had not yet used or relied upon the information.

The appellant software company appealed the dismissal of its claim that the respondent breached a distribution agreement by copying the features and functionality of its software to create a derivative work.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's factual findings that no copying occurred and that the respondent's use of a marketing presentation was authorized.

The Court also found no error in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings, including the exclusion of an omnibus package of documents under the party admissions exception to the hearsay rule and the exclusion of an expert report that lacked necessity.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's patent infringement action, the successful defendants sought their costs.

The Federal Court declined to award a lump sum based on actual fees, instead awarding costs to both defendants in accordance with the high end of Column IV of Tariff B, with double costs applied after the dates of their respective settlement offers.

Post-judgment interest was set at 2.5%.

The plaintiff, dTechs epm Ltd., alleged that the defendants, BC Hydro and Awesense, infringed its patent (the 087 Patent) for a method of detecting electricity theft, primarily associated with marijuana grow operations.

The method involves monitoring electrical consumption on a primary supply line and comparing it to known consumption patterns.

The Federal Court construed the claims of the patent, concluding that "known consumption patterns" meant historical or predicted patterns, not same-time data from smart meters.

Based on this construction, the Court found that the defendants did not infringe the patent, as their systems relied on same-time energy balancing.

Furthermore, the Court found the asserted claims of the 087 Patent invalid for anticipation by BC Hydro's own prior use and two prior art references, and invalid for obviousness.