United Airlines, Inc. v. Cooperstock, 2014 FC 157

This was an appeal of a prothonotary’s decision refusing to order that certain paragraphs of the Statement of Claim be removed. Following examination for discovery, the Defendant was advised by the Plaintiff that it was no longer claiming monetary compensation in the proceeding for the infringement of its rights. The Defendant wanted the Statement of Claim to be amended in order to reflect that the action for copyright infringement, trade-mark infringement and passing off would not claim any more for damages.

Prothonotary Morneau dismissed the Defendant’s request, which he noted was in the form of a request for directions and intervention. He found that there was no need for the amendment, since the Plaintiff confirmed to the Court that it would not seek monetary compensation at trial. On appeal, the Court noted that it would review a decision of a prothonotary de novo only if the question raised is vital or the order is clearly wrong. The Court found neither, and stated that even if it did review de novo the matter, it would have reached the same conclusion as the prothonotary. The Court found that the amendment was not needed in view of the concession made by the Plaintiff on the record and on numerous occasions. The Court held that there was no confusion and no prejudice suffered by the Defendant. The appeal was dismissed, with no costs awarded.