Crocs Canada., Inc. v. Double Diamond Distribution Ltd., 2024 FC 2056
Justice Aylen - 2024-12-18
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
Before the Court is a motion by the Defendant ... for an order allowing an appeal from the order of Associate Judge Crinson. The Order was issued in relation to a motion brought by the Plaintiffs compelling the Defendant to provide answers, including documents where applicable, to certain questions purportedly answered or not answered during an examination ... purusant to Rule 426. ... The Defendant is a judgment debtor of the Plaintiffs, as the Plaintiffs obtained two judgments against them from this Court (one for $649,779.17 in damages plus interest for infringement of industrial design and one for costs in the lump sum amount of $232,861.13) ... I see no error made by Associate Judge Crinson in his interpretation as to the proper scope of an examination under Rule 426 and the interplay between the examination contemplated by Rule 87(d) and a Rule 426 examination. ... The fatal problem with the Defendant’s appeal of the specific items ordered to be answered by Associate Judge Crinson is that the Defendant has failed to articulate a specific error alleged to have been made in relation to each item under appeal.
Decision relates to:
- T-1662-17 - CROCS CANADA, INC. AND CROCS INC. v. DOUBLE DIAMOND DISTRIBUTION LTD.