Federal Court Reiterates High Standard for Excluding Expert Evidence at Preliminary Motions
The Federal Court’s recent decision in McCain Foods Limited v J.R. Simplot Company, 2023 FC 1480 provides further clarity on rule 52.5 of the Federal Court Rules (the “Rules”). Rule 52.5 (1) provides that parties must raise disqualifying objections regarding expert witnesses as early as possible:
52.5 (1) A party to a proceeding shall, as early as possible in the proceeding, raise any objection to an opposing party’s proposed expert witness that could disqualify the witness from testifying.
The action underlying this decision is a patent infringement action where McCain Foods Limited (“McCain”) asserts that J.R. Simplot Company (“Simplot”) infringed their patent directed to a process for treating fruits and vegetables before cooking. In June 2023, Simplot served the expert reports of Dr. Vorobiev and Dr. Sastry. Under rule 52.5, McCain objected to the expert report of Dr. Vorobiev.
Subsequently, McCain brought a motion to strike Dr. Vorobiev’s report and sought the determination on the merits of their objections to Dr. Voroviev’s evidence. The Court was asked to determine if rule 52.5 of the Rules requires prompt resolution on the merits of whether an expert witness's evidence is admissible.
The Court dismissed McCain’s motion. The Court held that the Rules do not require a motion to be brought as early as possible to determine the merits of any objections to expert evidence or the admissibility of an expert’s report. Instead, the notice requirement in rule 52.5 serves to ensure that no party is taken by surprise.
The Court acknowledged that a case management judge does possess the authority to strike expert evidence during a pre-trial motion. However, the Court warned that a case management judge should exercise such authority sparingly and only when the moving party lands a “knockout punch”.
Authors
Expertise
Insights
-
Intellectual Property Litigation
Trademarks Opposition Board Moves to Digital-Only Submission of Confidential Information
As of June 1, 2026, the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) requires all confidential evidence and documentation in proceedings under sections 11.13, 38, or 45 of the Trademarks Act (the “Act”) to be… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Kansas City Chiefs Stars Sued for Trademark Infringement Over Steakhouse
The sneaker company, 1587 Sneakers, is reportedly suing Kansas City Chiefs players, Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce, along with their restaurant partners, for trademark infringement.1587 Sneakers… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Pecking Order Problem: Pudgy Penguins Faces Penguin Trademark Lawsuit
As reported by Bloomberg Law News, PEI Licensing (“PEI”), the owner of the Penguin apparel brand, has sued Pudgy Penguins NFT (“Pudgy Penguins”) for trademark infringement.Pudgy Penguins started as a… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Old Brand, New Problems? Nike’s Attempt to Revive “Total 90” Soccer Cleats
Nike is reportedly attempting to revive its classic “Total 90” soccer cleat line, but has encountered an unexpected setback. Total90, LLC has reportedly asserted that Nike is infringing its… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Swing and a Miss: The “All Rise” Trademark Attempt
As reported by Bloomberg, attempts to register marks covering the phrases “All Rise” and “Here Comes the Judge” were rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Hershey’s Kisses Go to Court – Federal Court of Appeal Decision in PIM Brands Inc. v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC
The Federal Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Promotion in Motion, Inc. (PIM Brands, Inc.) v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC offers fresh guidance on how courts evaluate survey evidence…