The Menard Lawsuit is a legal challenge that was filed against Scott Dewayne Orthmen, the lead physician of the plant, and others involved in the manufacture of the diabetic product Menard. According to the complaint, Dewayne designed a scheme in which he intentionally designed the outlet to intentionally keep diabetic patients away from the standard treatment.
For his part, Dewayne knew that the outlet was inherently defective and acted in bad faith throughout the production of the product. As a result of the complaint and the subsequent discovery, the Menards Company and the trial court were ordered to pay a substantial judgment to a former patient of the defective treatment.
Menard Lawsuit
The case was filed on behalf of the former patient identified as “Mr. X.” In this case, Mr. X was a patient who purchased a Menard treatment in early 1998. On the date of purchase, Mr. X had experienced an attack of high blood pressure and was rushed to the emergency room of a local hospital. While in the emergency room, he had a conversation with a doctor who explained that Menard was an inappropriate treatment for his condition and advised him not to use the product.
However, according to the complaint, Mr. X was still later directed by the doctor to use the treatment at home, despite having been informed that it was inherently defective.
Upon discovery, Mr. X discovered that another patient who was a family member had received a free Menard treatment from the same store on the day he had his attack of high blood pressure.
Mr. X’s subsequent investigation revealed that the manufacturer of Menards had directed him to falsify information on the first complaint that he filed against Menards. On the first complaint, he had falsely claimed that the product caused his attack, and that he was a victim of unreasonable discrimination.
In its answer to the complaint, the company admitted liability and agreed to a settlement which would result in Mr. X receiving a substantially less settlement than he would have otherwise received if he had been awarded a trial court settlement.
The company’s reply to the complaint is based on a number of premises.
Firstly, the complaint fails to distinguish between a first complaint and an answer to a second complaint. Secondly, on the view that the first complaint was intended to constitute a bar for the second complaint, there is no principled reason why the second complaint should fail to be considered as an answer to the first complaint.
Thirdly, there is no reason why a trial court should consider the validity of a settlement which has been determined to be inadequate. Finally, if there is a reasonable doubt as to the effectiveness of a product, the product must be declared non-satisfied, rather than a bar to the recovery of damages.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal of Ontario affirmed the decision of the trial court.
The majority opinion of the majority of the judges opined that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the claim preclusion aspect of the case. The majority also held that the trial court erred in holding that the sale of the motor vehicle involved here was for a personal use, rather than a business use.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. The Court of Appeal of Ontario further affirmed the decision in R. v. Menards. This is so because Menards had failed to establish that it was not entitled to a decree of judgment against it.
The majority of the Canadian lawbooks maintain that a litigated dispute must be decided according to the law of the realm in which it is undertaken.
Therefore, the vast majority of the limitations which are concluded in the litigating province are deemed to be of the realm of the law of Canada. The decision of the trial court in this case was therefore deemed to have been correctly upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal.
Accordingly, there is no need to determine whether the claim preclusion principles of Menards apply in this case. It is necessary only to determine whether the trial court erred in allowing the claim preclusion principle to be litigated in a Canadian court.
