The Respondents are descendants of the original designer of the
Bluenose, and claim copyright interests and moral rights to his
design drawings. When the original Bluenose sunk, the Bluenose II
was constructed. This boat has fallen into disrepair. The Province
of Nova Scotia started a project that is central to this dispute.
The Province argues that it is restoring the Bluenose II, while the
Respondents assert that the Province is creating an entirely new
vessel based on the lines of the original Bluenose. This is alleged
to be an infringement of their copyright and moral rights. The Respondents used a new rule, Rule 5.07 in the Rules of Civil
Procedure, to bring an application to advance their claim. The
Province (and other appellants) brought a motion to change the
application into a traditional action. They also sought to strike,
or obtain particulars, on parts of the claim. These motions were
dismissed (
judgment here). In this motion, the Appellants sought leave to
appeal, and to have the ruling overturned. The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal on the refusal to
strike certain aspects of the pleadings or require further
disclosure, stating that the judge correctly set out the applicable
law and explained why he was exercising his discretion. However,
regarding the issue of Rule 5.07, the Court of Appeal did
allow leave to appeal, as this was the first instance the Court had
been asked to consider the new process. The Court then considered
the decision below, and held that the judge displayed a clear
understanding of the issues in the case, and engaged in a
comprehensive analysis. The Court found nothing wrong with his
result and dismissed the appeal. The Plaintiffs brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction,
alleging unfair competition, appropriation of confidential
information and wrongful solicitation of its clients and employees.
They argued that these actions were in breach of both employment
contracts and fiduciary duties. The defendants are former
employees or consultants of the Plaintiff. Furthermore, the new
company used by them is in the same consulting technology business,
and is a competitor of the Plaintiff. The defendants argued that
the alleged confidential information is little more than generic
marketing and business practice, and that the customers had already
left the Plaintiff. The Court considered the test for trade secrets and confidential
business methodologies and held that there was little in the record
that could establish that there was anything unique about the
Plaintiff's business operation. The Court held that the
business methods alleged to be appropriated were generic business
practices. The Court also found there was no evidence of any
ongoing contact with any of the Plaintiff's clients and no
irreparable harm if any solicitation occurred. Finally, the Court
refused an order compelling forensic analysis of the
Defendants' computer equipment, as there was no evidence that
the equipment still contains some of the Plaintiff's materials.
Thus, the Plaintiff's motion was dismissed in its entirety. The PMPRB has published a new analytical report under the
National Prescription Drug Utilization Information System
initiative:
Analytical Snapshot: International Generic Price Comparision, Early
2011. The Natural Health Products Directorate is seeking feedback on proposed changes to the existing
guidance document — Compendium of Monographs, version 2.1
(November 2007). The consultation is open until October 26,
2013. The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
Copyright
Appeal Relating to New Simplified Application Procedure in
Copyright Claim Dismissed
NovaScotia v. Roué, 2013 NSCA 94
Other Cases of Interest
Motion for Interlocutory Injunction in Trade Secrets Case
Dismissed
Plaza Consulting Inc. v. Grieve, 2013
ONSC 5338
Other Industry News