|
Interest - Compound. Patel v. Dermaspark Products Inc.
In Patel v. Dermaspark Products Inc. (Fed CA, 2025) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, here where the lower court "decided that the appellants were liable, jointly and severally, in the amount of $45,000, representing statutory damages of $5,000 for copyright infringement, $20,000 for trademark infringement, passing off, depreciation of goodwill and unfair competition, and $20,000 for punitive damages".
Here the court considers 'compound interest':[49] Finally, the appellants challenge the award of compound interest. Awards of compound interest are often made to create an incentive for a party to pay a judgment quickly: AstraZeneca Canada Inc. and AstraZeneca Aktiebolag v. Apotex Inc. and the Minister of Health, 2011 FC 663; see also Beloit Canada Ltée v. Valmet Oy (1995), 1995 CanLII 19238 (FCA), 94 FTR 102, 61 C.P.R. (3d) 271 (F.C.A.). .... . MDS Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company
In MDS Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company (Ont CA, 2021) the Court of Appeal considered the awarding of compound interest (interest on interest):[103] Courts of equity have always exercised the power to award compound interest whenever there is wrongful detention of money that ought to have been paid and which the company uses in its business: Enbridge Gas v. Michael Marinaccio et al., 2011 ONSC 4962, at para. 17, aff’d 2012 ONCA 650, 355 D.L.R. (4th) 333, at paras. 56-57, leave to appeal refused, [2012] S.C.C.A. No. 514 & [2012] S.C.C.A. No. 517; Brock v. Cole (1983), 1983 CanLII 1952 (ON CA), 142 D.L.R. (3d) 461 (Ont. C.A.). This is based on the theory that it is reasonable to assume that the wrongdoer made the most beneficial use of the money and is accountable for the profits. A reasonable use of money implies compounding interest at some appropriate interval.
|
