Date: 19991028
Docket: T-441-96
Between:
PROGRESSIVE GAMES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
AND
AMUSEMENTS EXTRA INC.,
117872 CANADA LTÉE,
MARCEL HUARD and RÉAL BÉRUBÉ,
Defendants.
REASONS FOR ORDER
RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY:
[1] The plaintiff Progressive Games, Inc. has filed a motion pursuant to Rule 104 of the Federal Court Rules (1998) ("the Rules") to join to the action at bar for the infringement of Canadian patent 1,335,381 the following defendants: BCD Mécanique Ltée, Megapro Electro-Mécanique Inc., Distribution, Equipements, Qualité Casino (D.E.Q.) Ltée, Brevets Futek-MSM Ltée, Jean-Marc Guimont, Linda Bouchard, Marcel Guillemette and Charles Bergeron.
[2] After considering the evidence submitted in support of the instant motion, namely inter alia the affidavit of Robert E. Purcell dated February 5, 1999, on which the Court feels it can rely, I cannot say that it is absolutely clear, to apply the test set out in Norac Systems International Inc. v. Prairie Systems and Equip. Ltd. (1997), 72 C.P.R. (3d) 303, at 311-2, that the new allegations the plaintiff wishes to make have no chance of succeeding.
[3] I think that for a full and effective resolution of the issue raised by the plaintiff, the presence of the corporate and individual defendants mentioned above is indicated (see Amon v. Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd., [1956] 1 Q.B. 357, at 380 (Devlin J.), cited with approval in Parker v. Stevens (1998), 228 N.R. 133 (F.C.A.)).
[4] As regards the adequacy of the wording used by the plaintiff in its draft amended statement of claim, and in particular allegation 10 dealing with the involvement of the individual defendants, it seems to me based on the evidence presented and the wording of the paragraph itself that the latter goes further than the wording criticized in Painblanc v. Kastner (1994), 58 C.P.R. (3d) 502. Here the complaint is actually directed in the allegations against the personal and the direct involvement of the individuals. It is not their acts as officers or shareholders which are in question.
[5] Accordingly, the remedies sought by the plaintiff in its notice of motion will be granted, with costs to follow.
|
|
Richard Morneau
Prothonotary
|
MONTRÉAL, Quebec
October 28, 1999
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier, LL. B.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE No.: T-441-96
STYLE OF CAUSE: PROGRESSIVE GAMES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
AND
AMUSEMENTS EXTRA INC.,
117872 CANADA LTÉE,
MARCEL HUARD and RÉAL BÉRUBÉ,
Defendants.
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: October 25, 1999
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
DATE OF REASONS FOR ORDER: October 28, 1999
APPEARANCES:
François Guay for the plaintiff
François Grenier for the defendants
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Smart & Biggar for the plaintiff
François Guay
Montréal, Quebec
Léger, Robic, Richard for the defendants
François Grenier
Montréal, Quebec
Date: 19991028
Docket: T-441-96
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC, THIS 28th DAY OF OCTOBER 1999
PRESENT: RICHARD MORNEAU, ESQ., PROTHONOTARY
BETWEEN:
PROGRESSIVE GAMES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
AND
AMUSEMENTS EXTRA INC.,
117872 CANADA LTÉE,
MARCEL HUARD and RÉAL BÉRUBÉ,
Defendants.
ORDER
BCD Mécanique Ltée, Distribution, Equipements, Qualité de Casinos (D.E.Q.) Ltée, Mégapro Electro-Mécanique Inc./Megapro Electro-Mechanical Inc., Futek-MSM Patents Ltd. (Brevets Futek-MSM Ltée), Jean-Marc Guimont, Linda Bouchard, Marcel Guillemette and Charles Bergeron are hereby joined as Defendants in this case;
The Plaintiff is authorized to file and serve upon the additional Defendants an Amended Statement of Claim, a copy of which was annexed as schedule A to the Plaintiff's motion;
The additional Defendants shall file their Statement of Defence within sixty (60) days from the date of the present Order which shall also be served upon them with the above-mentioned Amended Statement of Claim.
Costs to follow.
|
|
Richard Morneau
Prothonotary
|
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier, LL. B.
Email this Content