Federal Court denies Monsanto default judgment over patent infringement

Monsanto Canada Inc. and Monsanto Company have been denied an order for default judgment by the Federal Court of Canada in a patent infringement case.  The farmer involved did not file a defence.  Monsanto alleged that the farmer signed a licence with and obtained patented seeds from Monsanto; that the licence permitted the farmer to grow one crop, not to save seeds, and not to replant a new crop from those seeds; and that, notwithstanding the terms of the licence, the farmer saved seeds and planted a crop containing the patented gene. 

The rules required that Monsanto file affidavit evidence in support of its claim.  In other words, although there was no defence filed, the Court would not simply accept the allegations in the claim without some proof.  Monsanto attempted to circumvent this requirement by serving a "Request to Admit", a series of allegations put to the opposing party.  Where the opposing party fails to answer (either by admitting or denying the allegations), as in this case, that party is deemed to have admitted the allegations.

The Federal Court declined to accept this "evidence" as a sufficient basis for a default judgment order:

I am sceptical of such an attempt to “bootstrap” the requirement to provide the necessary evidence to support a default judgment by procedural manoeuvring. While it is true that, particularly in contested proceedings, the Request to Admit process is useful in eliminating the need to prove certain facts, I am satisfied that such a Request cannot be a substitute for affidavit evidence required on a motion for default judgment. Rule 210(3) states that a motion for default judgment shall be supported by affidavit evidence which evidence, in the context of the Rules, I take to be directed to the substance of the claim and not just an affidavit of service. I agree that the Court might even have discretion in respect of certain of the practice and procedural provisions of the Rules. In this case, because there is no affidavit evidence, whatsoever, to support the allegations in the Statement of Claim, I will not exercise any discretion, even if I have it, to accept the unanswered Request to Admit in lieu of such affidavit evidence.

Read the decision at: Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Verdegem.

Ministry of the Environment News Release: $52,500 fine for constructing wells without licence

Lloyd Trodden Fined $52,500 For Constructing Wells Without A License

BRACEBRIDGE – On July 19, 2011, Lloyd Trodden pleaded guilty to seven violations under the Ontario Water Resources Act in relation to the construction of wells without a well contractor license.  In February 2009, the ministry received a complaint from a well owner that a newly constructed well was contaminated with gasoline. An inspection by ministry officials confirmed that the drinking water well was contaminated with a petroleum product. The inspection process revealed that Mr. Trodden constructed the well and that he did not possess a valid well contractor license to construct wells in Ontario.  Following an investigation, a number of additional wells were discovered that had been constructed by Mr. Trodden.  A ministry record search indicated that Mr. Trodden did not have a valid Well Contractor Licence when the wells were being constructed.

Mr. Trodden was charged following an investigation by the ministry’s Investigations and Enforcement Branch.  He was fined a total of $52,500 plus victim fine surcharges and given one year to pay the fine.

Ministry of the Environment News Release: $4,000 fine for selling pesticides without licence

Justin Vanderheide Fined $4,000 For Selling Pesticides Without A Licence

CAYUGA – On July 8, 2011, Justin VanDerheide was convicted on three violations under the Pesticides Act for offering the sale of a pesticide and selling a pesticide without a vendor’s licence.  The Court heard that Mr. VanDerheide resides in Dunnville, Haldimand County.  In November 2010, the ministry found an advertisement in a trade publication newspaper, dated offering Weed-Master 41 and Wiseup glyph sate for sale. Similar advertisements were also found on an advertising website.  The advertisements in the newspaper and on the website were later determined to belong to Mr. VanDerheide. Weed-Master 41 is a pesticide that requires a licence to sell.  A search of ministry records determined that Mr. VanDerheide did not possess a vendor’s licence.

Mr. VanDerheide was charged following an investigation by the ministry’s Investigations and Enforcement Branch.  He was fined 4,000 plus a victim fine surcharges and was given 15 days to pay the fine.

Appeal Tribunal rules Ontario vet resigned, not suspended

Dr. Ken Allan, of Perth, Ontario, was a licensed practising veterinarian from 1963 until September 19, 2009. In early January 2010, he applied for a Class 1 Licence under the Livestock Medicines Act (the Act) and was issued a licence on January 8, 2010. On May 14, 2010, the Director appointed under the Act issued a letter to Dr. Allan provisionally suspending his Class 1 Licence and advising that a hearing would be scheduled to determine whether his licence would be further suspended or revoked. On July 7, 2010, the Director appointed under the Act held a hearing to consider whether to further suspend or revoke Dr. Allan's licence.  Following a hearing in Dr. Allan's absence, the Director made various findings including a finding that Dr. Allan had sold livestock medicines other than from his place of business and had obstructed Ministry inspectors in the performance of their duties.

On the basis of those findings, the Director revoked Dr. Allan's licence under the Act.  He appealed to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal, which held a hearing de novo (meaning that the Appeal Tribunal heard all of the evidence as if it were the Director hearing the case fresh).  The Tribunal found that Dr. Allan had actually given up his licence before he received notice of it having been revoked by the Director.  Further, the Tribunal found that the Ministry had failed to provide Dr. Allan with a warning letter in accordance with its policy in advance of seeking the revocation of his licence.  For that and other related reasons, the Tribunal ruled that the original hearing by the Director should not have taken place and the findings made there must be overruled.

After considering the evidence before it, the Tribunal ruled as follows:

1. That Tribunal accepts the evidence of Dr. Allan's voluntary resignation from the licensing system, therefore the Tribunal will not order the reinstatement of his licence.
2. That all prescription and livestock medicines seized shall be returned to Dr. Allan; and, if they are expired, have been destroyed, or disposed of, then he shall be compensated for all said livestock medicines and prescription medicines.
3. That Dr. Allan's personal items and written records removed during the execution of the search warrant be returned forthwith.
4. That the Tribunal accepts the evidence that Dr. Allan voluntarily resigned from the licensing system before his licence was suspended or revoked, and therefore the Ministry shall not consider Dr. Allan's voluntary resignation from the licensing
   system negatively, should he reapply for a licence under the Act.

Read the decision at: Ken Allan vs. Director.