Merck Frosst Canada & Co. v. Canada ( Minister of National Health)

Merck Frosst Canada & Co. v. Canada ( Minister of National Health)

The appellant failed to discharge its burden of proving that the chemistry and manufacturing data were "confidential information" under paragraph 20(1)(b), and the Trial Judge's contrary factual findings were not vitiated by any palpable and overriding error; accordingly the decision to release the records must stand.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2002 FCA 35
Parties
Appellant: Merck Frosst Canada & Co.; Respondent: The Minister of National Health
Court
Federal Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 January 2002
Procedural Posture
Access to Information Act Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal (federal Court of Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Paragraph 20(1)(b) Confidentiality Exemption, Burden of Proof for Exemptions, Standard of Review on Factual Findings, New Drug Submission Data
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Access to Information Health Law Intellectual Property Confidential Business Information Paragraph 20(1)(b) Confidentiality Exemption Burden of Proof for Exemptions Standard of Review on Factual Findings New Drug Submission Data

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Merck Frosst Canada & Co.

Appellant

The Minister of National Health

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Access to Information Act Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal (federal Court of Appeal)

  1. 1 Whether chemistry and manufacturing data submitted in a New Drug Submission constitute "confidential information" under paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act
  2. 2 Whether the appellant discharged the burden of proof to establish the exemption
  3. 3 Whether the Trial Judge's factual findings were entitled to deference on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to discharge its burden of proving that the chemistry and manufacturing data were "confidential information" under paragraph 20(1)(b), and the Trial Judge's contrary factual findings were not vitiated by any palpable and overriding error; accordingly the decision to release the records must stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs