Peter F. Kappel

In supplementary reasons regarding the costs of the trial, the Court of Appeal determined that the appellant's judgment was more favourable than its November 19, 1999 offer to settle.

The offer had proposed paying the respondent $200,000 while the appellant would retain ownership of the disputed invention.

Finding no reason to depart from the rule, the Court applied the cost consequences of Rule 49.10, awarding the appellant party-and-party costs up to the date of the offer and solicitor and client costs thereafter.

The respondent, an independent contractor for the appellant, invented a valuable hinge.

The appellant had previously required the respondent to sign an Employee Technology Agreement assigning his rights to any inventions to the company, under threat of termination.

The trial judge found the agreement unenforceable due to lack of consideration and economic duress.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that continued employment and forbearance from dismissal constituted valid consideration.

The Court also found no economic duress, as the pressure to sign was not illegitimate given the appellant's bona fide belief in its ownership of the inventions and the respondent's opportunity to seek independent advice.

The appellant was declared the owner of the invention.