Adding a related corporate plaintiff to a Statement of Claim
after the limitation period is allowed when it is correcting a
2013 ONSC 7867
Although this action for damages in relation to the alleged
receipt and misuse of confidential information is over six years
old, it is still in the pleadings stage. Recently the plaintiffs
sought to amend their pleadings and the defendants sought to
the statement of claim without leave to amend on the ground that
it discloses no reasonable cause of action.
The amendment relates to the addition of a corporate party who
was previously only described by a placeholder, similar to using a
John Doe. The Court held that it was clear that the plaintiffs
intended to pursue anyone within the Wyeth corporate group who
allegedly received and misused the confidential information. This
correction of a misnomer therefore did not involve the substitution
of one defendant for another, but rather a correction. Therefore,
it was found that the addition of the new party did not run afoul
of the applicable limitation period.
The defendants' motion to strike the pleading failed, as it
was not plain and obvious to the Court that the allegations must
fail. Each requisite element for the various causes of action had
been pleaded but the outcome of those allegations was to be decided
on a later day.
Other Industry News
The amendments to the Patent Rules and
both patent and trade-mark agents came into effect on May 1, 2014.
The amendments relate to things such as writing the qualifying
examinations and renewing an agent's name on the registers.
The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH)
released Common Drug Review Procedure and Submission
Guidelines for Subsequent Entry Biologics
("Guidelines"). The purpose of the Guidelines is to
provide an overview of the Common Drug Review ("CDR")
procedure for conducting reviews of subsequent entry biologics
("SEBs"),and to provide guidance to manufacturers in the
preparation of CDR submissions for SEBs.
A recent Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench decision allowed a court-appointed receiver to sell and transfer intellectual property rights free and clear of encumbrances, finding that a license to use improvements of an invention was a contractual interest and not a property interest.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).