Bristol Myers Squibb Co. v. Apotex Inc.
Court headnote
Bristol Myers Squibb Co. v. Apotex Inc. Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2004-11-18 Neutral citation 2004 FC 1608 File numbers T-2078-00 Decision Content Date: 20041118 Docket: T-2078-00 Citation: 2004 FC 1608 BETWEEN: BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY and BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB CANADA INC. Plaintiffs - and - APOTEX INC. Defendant REASONS FOR ORDER PINARD J.: [1] This is a motion on behalf of the defendant to set aside the Order of Madam Prothonotary Aronovitch dated July 27, 2004 and substituting therefore an Order requiring the plaintiffs' representatives, Ms. Johanna Mercier and Mr. Joseph Yevich, to re-attend for examination for discovery to provide under oath, answers to undertakings, matters taken under advisement and refusals given at their examinations in addition to those already ordered answered by the Prothonotary. [2] Upon hearing counsel for the parties and upon reading the relevant material filed, I am not prepared to conduct a de novo review of the merits of the impugned decision and to consider exercising my own discretion differently for the following reasons: 1. on the basis of the submissions contained in paragraphs 12 to 60 of the plaintiffs' written representations, I am of the view that the defendant has failed to demonstrate that the Prothonotary's decision is "clearly wrong", in that it was based upon an incorrect principle of law or misapprehension of the facts, or that the question raised is vital to the "final issue" in the case (see Canada …
Read full judgment
Bristol Myers Squibb Co. v. Apotex Inc. Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2004-11-18 Neutral citation 2004 FC 1608 File numbers T-2078-00 Decision Content Date: 20041118 Docket: T-2078-00 Citation: 2004 FC 1608 BETWEEN: BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY and BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB CANADA INC. Plaintiffs - and - APOTEX INC. Defendant REASONS FOR ORDER PINARD J.: [1] This is a motion on behalf of the defendant to set aside the Order of Madam Prothonotary Aronovitch dated July 27, 2004 and substituting therefore an Order requiring the plaintiffs' representatives, Ms. Johanna Mercier and Mr. Joseph Yevich, to re-attend for examination for discovery to provide under oath, answers to undertakings, matters taken under advisement and refusals given at their examinations in addition to those already ordered answered by the Prothonotary. [2] Upon hearing counsel for the parties and upon reading the relevant material filed, I am not prepared to conduct a de novo review of the merits of the impugned decision and to consider exercising my own discretion differently for the following reasons: 1. on the basis of the submissions contained in paragraphs 12 to 60 of the plaintiffs' written representations, I am of the view that the defendant has failed to demonstrate that the Prothonotary's decision is "clearly wrong", in that it was based upon an incorrect principle of law or misapprehension of the facts, or that the question raised is vital to the "final issue" in the case (see Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425 at 454 (C.A.)); furthermore, 2. the defendant has failed to meet the heavy burden of demonstrating that the Prothonotary's interlocutory decision represents the "clearest case of a misuse of judicial discretion" (see Sawridge Band v. Canada, [2002] 2 F.C. 346 at 354 (C.A.)). [3] Consequently, the motion is dismissed, with costs. JUDGE OTTAWA, ONTARIO November 18, 2004 FEDERAL COURT NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-2078-00 STYLE OF CAUSE: BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY and BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB CANADA INC. v. APOTEX INC. PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: November 16, 2004 REASONS FOR ORDER: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard DATED: November 18, 2004 APPEARANCES: Mr. Patrick Smith Mr. Jay Zakaib FOR THE PLAINTIFFS Mr. David E. Lederman FOR THE DEFENDANT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: GOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON LLP FOR THE PLAINTIFFS Ottawa, Ontario GOODMANS LLP FOR THE DEFENDANT Toronto, Ontario
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca