Richard F. Southcott

The Plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment and to reverse a bifurcation order in a trademark infringement action regarding the Dunn's Trademarks.

The Court granted the motion to reverse the bifurcation.

The Court found the corporate Defendants liable for trademark infringement and held several individual directors personally liable based on their deliberate and knowing pursuit of infringing activities.

The Court awarded damages under the Trademarks Act and ordered delivery up of offending materials, including domain names.

The claim for copyright infringement was dismissed for lack of evidence establishing authorship or ownership.

The plaintiff, a real estate board, sought an interlocutory injunction against the defendants, alleging they illegally accessed its multiple listing service and scraped data for commercial gain, infringing its copyright.

The Federal Court found there was a serious issue to be tried but dismissed the motion because the plaintiff failed to establish it would suffer irreparable harm pending trial, and the balance of convenience favoured allowing the defendants to continue operating.

The Plaintiff, a freight forwarder, sought summary judgment for unpaid seafreight invoices and dismissal of the Defendant's counterclaim for a volume incentive rebate.

The Plaintiff also sought punitive damages and solicitor-client costs, including a claim that costs should be paid personally by the Defendant's counsel under Rule 404.

The Federal Court granted summary judgment for the unpaid invoices and dismissed the counterclaim, finding no genuine issue for trial.

The Court awarded the Plaintiff its costs on a solicitor-client basis based on a contractual entitlement but declined to award punitive damages.

The Court dismissed the Rule 404 claim against the Defendant's counsel, finding no basis for the allegations of misconduct, and awarded the Defendant's counsel costs for responding to that claim.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Assistant Commissioner denying his grievance of an involuntary transfer from British Columbia to Nova Scotia.

The transfer occurred after the applicant's long-term supervision order was suspended based on an anonymous tip alleging he had threatened staff.

The applicant argued the tip was groundless and motivated by another inmate attempting to conceal a theft.

The Court found the decision unreasonable because it failed to meaningfully grapple with the applicant's assertion regarding the reliability of the anonymous tip, a central issue in his grievance.

The application was allowed and the matter remitted for reconsideration.