Westaim Corp. v. Royal Canadian Mint
T-453-98
Wetston J.
23/12/98
11 pp.
Motion for order striking A.S.P.'s dismissal of motion seeking substitution of representative produced for discovery by Attorney General-Main action alleging plating process in Mint's new facility being constructed in Winnipeg infringing Westaim's patent-Counterclaim alleging patent invalidity-Attorney General added as plaintiff by counterclaim-Pierre Tremblay examined as representative of Mint, Attorney General-Tremblay working at Mint since graduation from high school-Never member of Patent Office, staff of Attorney General-Answered 16 out of 99 questions-Remainder either refused, taken under advisement, undertaken or answered by counsel-A.S.P. dismissing motion to substitute informed representative without reasons-Federal Court Rules, 1998, r. 237(2) providing where Crown to be examined for discovery, Attorney General shall select representative to be examined on its behalf-Broader than former R. 456, confining Crown deponents to officers, servants-R. 241 providing for general obligation to inform oneself-Court will not normally intervene in Crown's selection of officer unless demonstrated nominee not informed, capable of being informed of facts essential to issue upon which discovery pursued: Ermineskin Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs & Northern Development), [1995] 3 F.C. 544 (T.D.)-Two pleaded issues regarding Attorney General: patent validity; whether Attorney General estopped from challenging patent validity on any matter previously considered by Patent office during prosecution of patent-Patent office file only information directly available to Attorney General-Tremblay reviewed file-Most of questions refused to answer relating to Attorney General's motivation in seeking to impeach patent-Motion dismissed-A.S.P.'s decision not manifestly wrong-Majority of objections based on relevance of questions-Relevance of individual questions, and refusal not argued herein-Not sufficient basis for Court's intervention pursuant to r. 237(3)-If questions relevant, may be necessary at later stage to move for substitution-Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, rr. 237, 241-Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, R. 456 (as am. by SOR/90-846, s. 15).