Astrazeneca Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health)

Astrazeneca Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2005-05-04
Neutral citation
2005 FC 623
File numbers
T-720-02
Decision Content
Date: 20050504
Docket: T-720-02
Citation: 2005 FC 623
BETWEEN:
ASTRAZENECA CANADA INC.
Applicant
and
HEALTH CANADA, THE MINISTER OF HEALTH
and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER
PHELAN J.
[1] The Applicant has brought a motion for a reconsideration of my Order dated February 8, 2005.
[2] The issue is my conclusion at paragraph 35 of the Reasons:
Finally, AstraZeneca had objected to the Department proposing to disclose information which it had initially agreed not to disclose. This category, along with category 7, appears no longer to be in dispute.
[3] Both parties have advised me that the issue concerning the Department proposing to disclose information that it had initially agreed not to disclose("unsevered information") is still a live issue.
[4] At the conclusion of the hearing of this matter, I directed that the parties file with the Court, those documents still in dispute.
[5] The documents filed identified the information in dispute with a numerical notation corresponding with the categories of issues. The Court did not understand that the information underlined in red was the "unsevered information" as well as information subject to a non-disclosure claim in accordance with the appropriate category. The Court understood from the documents filed as "Disputed Severances" that the issue of unsevered information was no longer in dispute.
[6] As a result the Court only considered the issue of whether this "unsevered information" fell within the category to which it was identified and the Court did not consider the issue of whether the Minister had the jurisdiction to "unsever" certain information.
[7] In my view this is a situation which falls squarely within the intent and words of Rule 397(1)(b). The issue of the Minister's jurisdiction was overlooked or accidentally omitted.
[8] The Respondent has also raised certain typographical errors which will be corrected in the Amended Reasons which will flow from a consideration of the outstanding issue of whether the Minister had jurisdiction to unsever the information so identified in the Disputed Severances.
[9] This reconsideration can be dealt with in writing based upon the written representations.
(s) "Michael L. Phelan"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-720-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: ASTRAZENECA CANADA INC. v. HEALTH CANADA et al
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING:
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: Phelan J.
DATED: May 4, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Mr. J. Sheldon Hamiton
Mr. James Pan FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Michael Roach FOR THE RESPONDENTS
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Smart & Biggar
Toronto, Ontario FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Mr. John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE DEFENDANTS