Glaxosmithkline Inc. v. Canada

Glaxosmithkline Inc. v. Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2005-08-26
Neutral citation
2005 FCA 282
File numbers
A-345-05
Decision Content
Date: 20050826
Docket: A-345-05
Citation: 2005 FCA 282
Present: SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
GLAXOSMITHKLINE INC.
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties.
Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on August 26, 2005.
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: SHARLOW J.A.
Date: 20050826
Docket: A-345-05
Citation: 2005 FCA 282
Present: SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
GLAXOSMITHKLINE INC.
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
SHARLOW J.A.
[1] This is a motion to determine the contents of the appeal book for an appeal of an interlocutory decision of Beaubier J. of the Tax Court of Canada. There are only two items in dispute. One is a notice of motion dated August 12, 2002, and the supporting affidavit, that the appellant had filed in a previous interlocutory matter in the Tax Court. That motion requested an order for further and better answers from certain third parties. It was heard and granted by Bowie J. The second disputed item is a document containing portions of the transcript of the hearing of the August 12, 2002, motion. The appellant says that those transcripts disclose discussions about the relevancy of some of the information the appellant sought from the third parties.
[2] The order of Beaubier J. that is the subject of this appeal precludes the use of certain third party evidence in the appeal. The appellant proposes to argue in the appeal that this order could hamper or hinder the appellant's ability to present its case in the main tax appeal.
[3] At the risk of oversimplifying the debate, it seems to me that the appellant proposes to argue, among other things, that the order of Beaubier J. is inconsistent with the earlier order of Bowie J., in the sense that, according to the appellant, the two judges reached contradictory conclusions as to the relevance of certain evidence. The appellant wishes to include the disputed material in the appeal book so that the panel hearing the appeal will have a better understanding of the arguments that were made before Bowie J., presumably so that those arguments might be compared to the arguments made before Beaubier J.
[4] The respondent objects to the inclusion of the disputed documents on the basis that they were not before Beaubier J. when he made his decision, and that the appellant is actually attempting to present new evidence on appeal even though the evidence could, with due diligence, have been adduced at the hearing before Beaubier J. In my view, the respondent's objections are sound.
[5] Also, I am unable to conclude, based on the appellant's motion material, that the disputed documents would be of assistance to the Court in determining this appeal. I note that Bowie J. gave written reasons for his order. There is nothing to preclude the appellant from including those reasons in the authorities he submits in support of its appeal.
"K. Sharlow"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-345-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: GLAXOSMITHKLINE INC. and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: SHARLOW J.A.
DATED: August 26, 2005
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Pierre Barsalou/Sebastien Rheault/Eleni Kouros
FOR THE APPELLANT
Naomi Goldstein/Karen Janke/Myra Yuzak
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Barsalou Lawson
Montréal, Quebec
FOR THE APPELLANT
John H. Sims Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT