Quadco Equipment Inc. v. Timberjack Inc., 2003 FCA 93

Date: 20030220

Docket: A-307-02

Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 93

CORAM:        DESJARDINS J.A.

DÉCARY J.A.

LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

BETWEEN:

QUADCO EQUIPMENT INC.

Plaintiff

(Respondent)

- and -

TIMBERJACK INC.

Defendant

(Appellant)

Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on Wednesday, February 19^th, 2003.

Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario,

on Wednesday, February 19^th , 2003.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:                                                DÉCARY J.A.

Date: 20030220

Docket: A-307-02

Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 93

CORAM:        DESJARDINS J.A.

DÉCARY J.A.

LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

BETWEEN:

QUADCO EQUIPMENT INC.

Plaintiff

(Respondent)

                                      - and -

TIMBERJACK INC.

Defendant

(Appellant)

                                       REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

                                              (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario,

                                                       on Wednesday, February 19, 2003)

[1]                 We have not been persuaded that Heneghan J. committed any reviewable error in dismissing the appellant's motion for summary judgment.

[2]                 She was satisfied that the evidence of prior publication submitted by the appellant was not conclusive.

[3]                 She was also satisfied that more evidence was needed to establish the meaning of "straight edges" in the Patent and the extent to which this characteristic was important in legally distinguishing the sawteeth from each other.

[4]                 The test on appeal is whether the judge made an overriding and palpable error in determining that Quadco has raised a genuine issue for trial. As noted by this Court in ITV Technologies Inc. v. UIC Television Ltd., 2001 F.C.A. 11, (2001), 11 C.P.R. (4^th)174, at paragraph 6, the judge's conclusion is "a conclusion as to the weight and probity of evidence and the inferences to be drawn from the evidence" and it is therefore entitled to significant deference. No overriding and palpable error has been shown.

[5]                 With respect to the "best foot forward" test under Rule 215, we simply wish to point out that Rule 215, contrary to its predecessor, Rule 432.2, does not impose on the respondent to a motion for summary judgment the obligation to file "affidavit material or other evidence". It imposes rather, the obligation "to set out specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial". We leave it for another day to determine the impact, if any, of the new Rule on the "best foot forward" requirement as defined under the previous Rule.

[6]                 The appeal will be dismissed with costs.

                                                                                                                                           "Robert Décary"                 

                                                                                                                                                                  J.A.                          

                                                       FEDERAL COURT OF CANDA

                                                                 APPEAL DIVISION

                              NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                    A-307-02

STYLE OF CAUSE:                    QUADCO EQUIPMENT INC.

Plaintiff

(Respondent)

- and -

TIMBERJACK INC.

Defendant

(Appellant)

PLACE OF HEARING:TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:    WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2003

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

OF THE COURT BY:     DÉCARY J.A

DATED:                                      THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2003

DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH AT TORONTO, ONTARIO ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2003.

APPEARANCES:                        Mr. Serge Fournier

For the Plaintiff

(Respondent)

Mr. Brian W. Gray

Mr. John P. Koch

For the Defendant

(Appellant)

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Brouillette Charpentier Fortin

Montreal, Quebec

For the Plaintiff

(Respondent)

Blake, Cassels & Graydon, LLP

Toronto, Ontario

For the Defendant

(Appellant)