Background
Cavalia Inc., a performing arts company founded by Normand Latourelle, operated for over 20 years before filing for bankruptcy on April 25, 2025. Among its productions were spectacular light-show attractions branded as ILLUMI, presented in Laval, Quebec and Mississauga, Ontario. These events attracted hundreds of thousands of visitors and generated substantial goodwill for the registered ILLUMI trademarks through intensive promotion and use.
Following the bankruptcy, Raymond Chabot Inc. was appointed trustee to manage Cavalia’s assets. In the summer of 2025, 9505-3773 Québec Inc.—a holding company whose president is Mathieu Tardif-Latourelle (son of Normand Latourelle)—launched FESTILUMI, a light-show attraction conceptually identical to the ILLUMI events, at Central Market in Montreal. Normand Latourelle serves as artistic producer and is involved in marketing the venture. By October 2025, 9505 reported selling tens of thousands of tickets.
The trustee commenced this action in Federal Court alleging trademark infringement and passing off. In response, 9505 filed an extensive affidavit from Normand Latourelle containing 126 paragraphs and 45 exhibits. The trustee moved to strike 86 paragraphs and 25 exhibits as irrelevant to the trademark dispute.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Jocelyne Gagné granted the motion in part. The court applied Federal Court Rules, Rule 81, which requires affidavit evidence to be limited to facts within the affiant’s personal knowledge and to be relevant to the issues in dispute, without commentary, explanation, opinions, arguments, or conclusions. The court emphasized that while it possesses discretionary power to strike affidavits preliminarily, such power should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances where the interests of justice require it, retention would prejudice a party, or retention would impair the proper conduct of the proceedings.
The court struck the following as manifestly irrelevant: (1) paragraphs 17–43 and supporting exhibits describing pre-bankruptcy relations between Cavalia and Caisse Desjardins regarding refinancing and the causes of bankruptcy—matters properly within the Quebec Superior Court’s jurisdiction; (2) paragraphs 44–79 and 89–92 with exhibits detailing the trustee’s asset liquidation strategy and acquisition offers, except exhibits NL-28 and NL-29, which directly address post-bankruptcy use of the ILLUMI marks and efforts to acquire them; (3) paragraph 99 and its exhibit showing that the company’s websites were deactivated—an inevitable consequence of bankruptcy; and (4) paragraphs referring to alleged misconduct by the trustee and creditor, which concern bankruptcy administration, not trademark infringement.
The court retained as potentially relevant: paragraphs 80–88 and exhibits NL-28 and NL-29 discussing post-bankruptcy use of the ILLUMI marks and their value (showing Desjardins’s position that the marks should not be sold quickly as they are not subject to rapid depreciation); and paragraphs 93–101 alleging that the trustee failed to renew related intellectual property, including the CAVALIA mark in the United States and certain domain names, as these go to the management and maintenance of the estate’s IP assets.
Key Takeaways
- In civil litigation, affidavits must be strictly limited to relevant facts; evidence concerning parallel disputes in other forums or tangential to the core legal claims may be struck even if factually accurate.
- A trustee in bankruptcy’s asset management decisions and disputes with creditors, while important in insolvency proceedings, are not relevant to a subsequent trademark infringement claim arising from those assets.
- Evidence bearing directly on the goodwill, use, and valuation of intellectual property after an insolvency event may be admissible in a trademark case, even if it arises from contested asset negotiations.
- Courts exercise restraint in striking affidavits preliminarily, reserving such power for circumstances where retention would materially prejudice a party or obstruct the proper administration of justice.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates the Federal Court’s role in managing the scope of trademark litigation and preventing collateral attacks on trustee conduct. Although Raymond Chabot Inc. v. 9505-3773 Québec Inc. is fundamentally about trademark rights and confusion, the defendant attempted to inject evidence about the insolvency process, creditor disputes, and alleged trustee misconduct. The court cleanly separated the Federal Court’s jurisdiction over trademark disputes from the Quebec Superior Court’s jurisdiction over bankruptcy administration, thereby maintaining focus on the legal questions the Federal Court was competent to decide.
The decision also highlights the tension between litigants’ desire to provide full context and the procedural imperative to keep litigation manageable. By striking exhibits comparing competing acquisition offers and allegations of trustee misconduct, the court prevented the Federal Court proceedings from becoming a proxy for disputes better resolved through bankruptcy supervision. At the same time, the court preserved evidence directly material to assessing the ILLUMI marks’ goodwill and post-bankruptcy use—factors essential to proving trademark infringement and passing off. The result is a streamlined proceeding focused on the trademark claim itself.