Practice
Judgments and Orders
Summary Judgment
Timing condition — Defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim (Farmers Edge Inc.) submitting notice of motion for summary judgment dismissing patent infringement action brought by plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim (Farmobile, LLC) — Notice of motion referred to Court for directions as to filing pursuant to Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, r. 72 because notice potentially not complying with r. 213(1) — R. 213(1) requiring party bringing motion for summary judgment to do so any time “before the time and place for trial have been fixed” (timing condition) — Trial date set down in this matter on three separate occasions — Trial adjourned sine die as result of COVID-19 pandemic — Farmers Edge arguing, inter alia, timing condition not engaged because no trial date currently scheduled — Farmobile submitting that timing condition triggered because trial set down on three occasions — Also arguing Farmers Edge’s motion for summary judgment should not be permitted to proceed under Federal Courts Rules, r. 55 because it will not save resources or dismiss its claim — Whether timing condition engaged — If timing condition engaged, whether Court should allow summary judgment motion to proceed under r. 55 (whereby Court may vary rule or dispense with compliance with the Federal Courts Rules in special circumstances) — R. 213(1) stating that “[a] party may bring a motion for summary judgment or summary trial on all or some of the issues raised in a pleading at any time after the defendant has filed a defence but before the time and place for trial have been fixed” — Timing condition, properly interpreted, preventing Farmers Edge from filing motion for summary judgment at this stage, as of right, because trial date previously fixed (three times) in proceeding — Requirement on each party to continue advancing their case to trial not suddenly disappearing or changing simply because trial date temporarily adjourned sine die due to exceptional, unforeseen circumstances — Parties expected to maintain their focus on trial preparation — Preparation of evidence for, hearing of, summary judgment motion running contrary to Federal Courts Rules, r. 3 objective to bring trial on as quickly as possible — R. 213(1) intended to preclude party from bringing motion for summary judgment, without leave of Court (r. 55), after first trial date fixed, even if later adjourned — Open to Court under r. 55 to permit motion for summary judgment to proceed notwithstanding that trial date already fixed — Factors in Hoffmann-La Roche Limited v. Pfizer Canada Inc., 2018 FC 932 considered — Farmers Edge not discharging its burden of satisfying Court that significant savings of costs, time, and efficiencies made by permitting motion to proceed — Even if motion succeeding, not resulting in full adjudication of every issue in litigation — Farmobile suffering prejudice if summary judgment motion allowed to proceed — Farmers Edge not bringing its summary judgment motion in timely manner — Farmers Edge’s request to proceed with motion for summary judgment dismissed.
Farmobile, LLC v. Farmers Edge Inc. (T-449-17, 2020 FC 688, Case Management Judge Kathleen M. Ring, reasons for order dated June 15, 2020, 13 pp.)