Apotex Inc. v. The Wellcome Foundation Ltd.

Apotex Inc. v. The Wellcome Foundation Ltd.

The prothonotary erred in ordering specified categories of documents to be listed and produced before the statement of issues and affidavits of documents were filed and in the absence of a formal motion; the order was premature, beyond the prothonotary's jurisdiction in those circumstances and breached procedural rights, and therefore the motion to strike is granted.

Citation
2004 FC 574
Parties
Plaintiff/defendant: Apotex Inc.; Plaintiff/defendant: Novopharm Ltd.; Plaintiff/defendant: The Wellcome Foundation Limited; Plaintiff: Glaxo Wellcome Inc.; Defendant: Interpharm Inc.; Defendant: Allen Barry Shechtman
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Reference for Determination of Damages (civil) / Interlocutory Motion to Strike Parts of a Case Management Order (decision on Motion)
Outcome
Motion granted with costs
Legal Topics
Affidavit of Documents, Production of Documents, Jurisdiction of Prothonotary, Rule 47(2) Motion Requirement, Reference for Damages
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Discovery Case Management Patent Litigation Affidavit of Documents Production of Documents Jurisdiction of Prothonotary Rule 47(2) Motion Requirement +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Apotex Inc.

Plaintiff/defendant

Novopharm Ltd.

Plaintiff/defendant

The Wellcome Foundation Limited

Plaintiff/defendant

Glaxo Wellcome Inc.

Plaintiff

Interpharm Inc.

Defendant

Allen Barry Shechtman

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Reference for Determination of Damages (civil) / Interlocutory Motion to Strike Parts of a Case Management Order (decision on Motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a prothonotary may order specific categories of documents to be produced before statements of issues and affidavits of documents are filed
  2. 2 Whether the prothonotary had jurisdiction to make the order in the absence of a formal motion
  3. 3 Whether the order was premature and contrary to the Federal Court Rules governing affidavits of documents

Ratio Decidendi

The prothonotary erred in ordering specified categories of documents to be listed and produced before the statement of issues and affidavits of documents were filed and in the absence of a formal motion; the order was premature, beyond the prothonotary's jurisdiction in those circumstances and breached procedural rights, and therefore the motion to strike is granted.

Court Disposition

Motion granted with costs

Orders

  • Strike or set aside paragraphs 2(c)(i) and 2(c)(ii) of Prothonotary Lafrenière's order dated February 11, 2004
  • Motion granted with costs