Apotex Inc. v. Pfizer Canada Inc.

Apotex Inc. v. Pfizer Canada Inc.

The motion is allowed in part because the prothonotary ordered answers to questions that were not relevant to the pleaded issues; discovery is confined to matters that may prove or disprove pleaded facts and cannot be used as a fishing expedition to add defendants or claims; therefore the portions of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2006 FC 262
Parties
Plaintiff: Apotex Inc.; Defendant: Pfizer Canada Inc.; Defendant: Pfizer Corporation; Defendant: Her Majesty the Queen
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Action Under Patented Medicines (notice of Compliance) Regulations Alleging Damages Under S.8; Joinder of Foreign Parent as Alleged 'first Person' / Interlocutory Motion to Set Aside Prothonotary Order on Discovery (motion Heard February 23, 2006, Decision February 28, 2006)
Outcome
Motion granted in part: set aside paragraph 1(i) and paragraph 1(ii) of Prothonotary Milczynski's January 30, 2006 Order insofar as they relate to questions 49-50, 67-68, 71, 118-119, 122, 160, 166, 173-175, 189-190; costs to defendants.
Legal Topics
Scope of Discovery, Piercing Corporate Veil/affiliated Liability, Patented Medicines (notice of Compliance) Regulations S.6 and S.8, Relevance Determined by Pleadings, Fishing Expedition
Source Language
english
Patent Law Civil Procedure Corporate Law Administrative Law Scope of Discovery Piercing Corporate Veil/affiliated Liability Patented Medicines (notice of Compliance) Regulations S.6 and S.8 Relevance Determined by Pleadings +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Apotex Inc.

Plaintiff

Pfizer Canada Inc.

Defendant

Pfizer Corporation

Defendant

Her Majesty the Queen

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Action Under Patented Medicines (notice of Compliance) Regulations Alleging Damages Under S.8; Joinder of Foreign Parent as Alleged 'first Person' / Interlocutory Motion to Set Aside Prothonotary Order on Discovery (motion Heard February 23, 2006, Decision February 28, 2006)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prothonotary erred in ordering answers to discovery questions not limited by the pleadings
  2. 2 Whether Pfizer Corporation can be treated as a 'first person' under s.8 of the Regulations by virtue of alleged complete control of Pfizer Canada
  3. 3 Whether questions about supply, pricing and broader corporate structure were relevant to pleaded issues or amounted to a fishing expedition

Ratio Decidendi

The motion is allowed in part because the prothonotary ordered answers to questions that were not relevant to the pleaded issues; discovery is confined to matters that may prove or disprove pleaded facts and cannot be used as a fishing expedition to add defendants or claims; therefore the portions of the prothonotary's order requiring answers to specified questions were set aside and costs awarded to the defendants.

Court Disposition

Motion granted in part: set aside paragraph 1(i) and paragraph 1(ii) of Prothonotary Milczynski's January 30, 2006 Order insofar as they relate to questions 49-50, 67-68, 71, 118-119, 122, 160, 166, 173-175, 189-190; costs to defendants.

Orders

  • Set aside paragraph 1(i) and paragraph 1(ii) of the Order of Prothonotary Milczynski dated January 30, 2006 insofar as they relate to questions 49-50, 67-68, 71, 118-119, 122, 160, 166, 173-175, 189-190.
  • Costs awarded to the Defendants.