Simon's Legal Resources

Civil Litigation - Orders - Copied

. Lounge Medical Spa Ltd. v. DermaSpark Products Inc.

In Lounge Medical Spa Ltd. v. DermaSpark Products Inc. (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal allowed two consolidated appeals, these involving Federal Court trademark damage proceedings.

Here the court considered the issue of 'copied' (as in copied from another case) formal orders, drawing upon the related law of copied 'reasons for decision' from Cojocaru v. British Columbia Women’s Hospital and Health Centre (SCC, 2013):

[6] At the outset of these reasons, I wish to comment on the Federal Court’s May judgment. With the exception of very minor alterations, the judgment is identical to the draft order that was included in DermaSpark and Pollogen’s motion record for summary trial.

[7] While the Supreme Court of Canada accepted in Cojocaru v. British Columbia Women’s Hospital and Health Centre, 2013 SCC 30, that judges may incorporate large portions of a party’s submissions or adopt a party’s proposed draft orders, the reasonable person apprised of all the relevant facts should be able to conclude that the judge came to grips with the issues and decided them impartially and independently based on the evidence and the law (at paras. 1, 18, 36-37, 49-50).

[8] The error that occurred in paragraph 8 originates from the draft order prepared by DermaSpark and Pollogen. While I accept that in the July reconsideration judgment the Federal Court acknowledged that a "“mistake/oversight was made in the preparation”" of the May judgment, the wholesale adoption of the draft order, including its errors, could cause a reasonable person to be concerned that the Federal Court did not direct its mind to all the issues and evidence before it.