Groupe Tremca Inc. v. Techno-Bloc Inc.
T-1064-97
Morneau P.
3/7/98
21 pp.
Motion to disqualify counsel for plaintiffs from continuing to act for clients due to conflict of interest-Defendant's vice-president consulting patent agent in 1990 about patent at issue, agent related to law firm representing plaintiffs in instant action-Plaintiffs suing defendant for infringement of Canadian patent 1,182,295 (patent 295), owned by plaintiff Jagna Limited-Patent 295 for retaining wall block generally incorporated into retaining wall systems-Patent formerly held by Risi Stone Ltd., owned by brothers Antonio and Angelo Risi (Risi), inventors of block covered by patent at issue-Charles Ciccarello, defendant's vice-president, consulting Antoine Gauvin, patent agent related to counsel for plaintiffs-According to defendant, one meeting held between Risi and Ciccarello in spring of 1990, possibility of obtaining licence from Risi to manufacture and sell block known as OMNI block discussed by Ciccarello at meeting-Risi giving Ciccarello two samples and drawing of OMNI block during meeting-Ciccarello uncertain whether OMNI block covered by patent 295, deciding in July 1990 to consult firm of Robic, patent agents, for opinion on matter-Antoine Gauvin agent seen at Robic-1990 consultation between Ciccarello and Gauvin amounting to consultation between Ciccarello and solicitor from law firm representing plaintiffs-MacDonald Estate v. Martin, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1235, leading decision with respect to conflict of interest involving lawyers-Potential communication of confidential information by client in initial dealings with solicitor basic factor in assessing possible existence of conflict when solicitor subsequently acting against client-Whether Gauvin, and thus Léger, Robic, Richard, received confidential information from Ciccarello concerning matter at issue when Ciccarello consulted Gauvin in July and September 1990-Substantial relationship, Ciccarello's 1990 consultation sufficiently related to retainer given to counsel for plaintiffs in instant case-Not argued information confidential in nature-Very good chance in instant case information already known to Risi because of previous meetings with Ciccarello-Ciccarello also acknowledged all information in public domain when 1993 action commenced-Motion dismissed.