| Citation: |
Wenzel Downhole Tools Ltd. v. National-Oilwell Canada Ltd., 2010 FC 966, [2010] 4 F.C.R. D-10 |
T-1327-05 |
Practice
Judgments and Orders
Summary Judgment
Motion by defendants for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s patent infringement action—Motion subject to new provisions in Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, relating to summary judgments, trials (rr. 213–219)—Issue: whether motion should be allowed to go forward—Motions for summary judgment addressing whether genuine issue for trial exists—Not in interests of justice for parties to be subject to additional burden of preparing for summary judgment motion when full trial on merits necessary—In case herein, several factors weighing against allowing motion for summary judgment to proceed—Genuine issues needing to be examined at trial—As to whether these issues could be determined by summary trial pursuant to Federal Courts Rules, r. 216, very little case law existing on the matter—Leading case on extent of a court’s discretion to grant judgment pursuant to summary trial Inspiration Management Ltd. v. McDermid St. Lawrence Ltd. (1989), 36 B.C.L.R. (2d) 202 (B.C.C.A.) (dealing with rule 9-7 (then rule 18A) of Supreme Court Civil Rules, B.C. Reg. 168/2009)—That case setting out number of factors to be considered—Subsequent cases adding additional factors—In light of these cases, several factors weighing against summary trial in case at hand: complexity of matter, cost, time, lack of expert opinions, urgency/wasted time, litigation in slices—Based on amount of time required to prepare summary trial, proximity of actual trial date, lack of independent expert evidence available at the moment, allowing motion for summary judgment to proceed not in interest of justice—Motion denied.
Wenzel Downhole Tools Ltd. v. National-Oilwell Canada Ltd. (T-1327-05, 2010 FC 966, Snider J., judgment dated September 28, 2010, 23 pp.)