Strathearn Consulting Inc. v. Kirshenblatt, 2015 FC 1404

The underlying case relates to copyright in the design of a renovation to a residential property. Strathearn has sued the architect, for using that design in a different property. The Respondent brought a motion to inspect the Strathearn property. That motion was granted by the Prothonotary, and that decision was upheld on appeal.

The Court held that the Prothonotary understood the balancing requirements of Rule 249 and applied them to the evidence and facts before her. Furthermore, she did not exercise her discretion based on a wrong principle. The Inspection Order was not clearly wrong. Thus, the appeal was dismissed.