Minnisota Mining and Manufacturing Co. v. Chemque Inc., 2001 FCA 369

Date: 20011127

Docket: A-206-01

Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 369

CORAM:        DÉCARY J.A.

LINDEN J.A.

SEXTON J.A.

BETWEEN:

                        MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY

                                                                                                                                                      Appellant,

                                                                                 and

                                                                    CHEMQUE, INC.

                                                                                                                                                   Respondent

                                          Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on November 27, 2001.

                  Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on November 27, 2001.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:                                                                                     SEXTON J.A.

Date: 20011127

Docket: A-206-01

Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 369

CORAM:        DÉCARY J.A.

LINDEN J.A.

SEXTON J.A.

BETWEEN:

                        MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY

                                                                                                                                                      Appellant,

                                                                                 and

                                                                    CHEMQUE, INC.

                                                                                                                                                   Respondent

                                                        REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

                             (Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, November 27, 2001

SEXTON J.A.

[1]                 We are not persuaded that Madame Justice Heneghan has failed to exercise her discretion in a judicial manner as defined by this Court in Visx Inc. v. Nidek Co. (1996), 72 C.P.R. (3d) 19 at 22 (F.C.A.). Her decision is reported at [2001] F.C.J. 386.                                                                                                                                         

[2]                 In particular we agree with her conclusion that the appeal has failed to satisfy the test for obtaining relief pursuant to Rule 399(2)(a) outlined in Saywack v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1986] 3 F.C. 189 (C.A.). Specifically, the appellant must show that the new matter relied on was discovered subsequent to the decision in issue and that it could not have been discovered sooner with reasonable diligence. In this case there was sufficient evidence which the appellant had, prior to the order permitting the amendment of the Statement of Defence, to put the appellant on notice that the defendant was proposing to amend its pleadings based on the documents from the American litigation. Both parties were aware of the United States confidentiality order and the appellant, with reasonable diligence, could have learned that the proposed amendment was based on the documents covered by the confidentiality order.

[3]                 The appeal will be dismissed with costs.

                                                                                                                                          "J. Edgar Sexton"                     

                                                                                                                                                                  J.A.