The applicants submitted that the Bell family of companies is one client. ![]() Several other companies are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Bell Canada, including Bell Aliant Inc (the parent of Bell Aliant). could be described as the parent company for several other separate corporations. While there may be some circumstances where related companies could be considered as one entity and one client, the circumstances in the present case do not lead to that conclusion.” īCE Inc. The Court held that “he Bell family of companies as a whole was not the current or former client of B&P. In this motion, the applicants sought an order removing B&P as solicitors of record for MediaTube on the basis that, due to their past and current relationship as a client of B&P, there is a conflict of interest and B&P must, therefore, be disqualified from representing MediaTube in the main action. MediaTube is represented by Bereskin and Parr (“B&P”). This motion arose in the context of an action by MediaTube and NorthVu, which claims the defendants, Bell Canada and Bell Aliant, collectively the “applicants” in this motion, infringed Canadian Patent No. and Northvu Inc v Bell Canada et al, 2014 FC 237 If Media Tube succeeded, it could recover from Bereskin (or its insurers) any amounts awarded against Media Tube in the Federal Court action and/or seek to have the Federal Court judgment set aside.Mediatube Corp. He went on to say that Media Tube still had the option of suing Bereskin “for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, or both in the provincial superior court” where full discovery would be available. In answer to Media Tube’s complaint that it needed to discover Bereskin in order to get all of the details, the judge observed (not surprisingly) that there is no provision for discovery before an appellate court. Justice Stratas was not satisfied that trial counsel knew of this work or that it would have been enough to constitute an actual conflict. Here, Bereskin had filed trademark applications for Microsoft. Media Tube needed to show:(1) the existence of an actual (not “apparent”) conflict and (2) and that the conflict adversely affected counsel’s performance at trial – it is not necessary to show that the outcome would have been different. Ineffective assistance of counsel is sometimes used in a criminal context – it is exceptionally rare to be found in civil cases. The Court of Appeal (Justice Stratas), on June 26, 2018, dismissed Media Tube’s motion. Media Tube also sought discovery of Bereskin & Parr in order to ascertain the full extent of the conflict. This apparent conflict caused Bereskin to “pull its punches” in its representation of Media Tube in order to avoid harming the business interests of Microsoft and advance those of Bereskin (keeping Microsoft happy as a client). According to Media Tube, Bereskin was concurrently acting for Microsoft whose software was used in the allegedly infringing system used by Bell. On its appeal, Media Tube (now represented by Aitken Klee) tried to amend its notice of appeal to add “ineffective assistance by trial counsel” as a ground of appeal. Media Tube lost at trial (decision dated January 4, 2017) and appealed. Bell Canada – Federal Court of Appeal – A company called Media Tube sued Bell Canada for patent infringement with respect to technology pertaining to Bell Fibe TV.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |