Pharmascience Inc. v. Pfizer Canada ULC

Pharmascience Inc. v. Pfizer Canada ULC

The appeal is dismissed because the prothonotary did not commit a reviewable error: he applied the correct legal test, properly considered relevance and proportionality in context (timing, prior discovery, burden, and limited evidentiary value of the requested source documents) and retained case management authority to revisit disclosure if experts rely on undisclosed materials; therefore no order for further disclosure was required.

Citation
2020 FC 1175
Parties
Plaintiff: Pharmascience Inc.; Defendant: Pfizer Canada ULC
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 December 2020
Procedural Posture
S 8 Patented Medicines (notice of Compliance) Regulations Damages Action / Pre Trial Interlocutory Appeal of Prothonotary Disclosure Order (motion to Compel Further Affidavit of Documents)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Further and Better Affidavit of Documents, Relevance, Proportionality, Section 8 Damages, Notice of Compliance Regulations
Source Language
English
Patent Law Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Discovery Pharmaceutical Regulation Disclosure Further and Better Affidavit of Documents Relevance +3 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pharmascience Inc.

Plaintiff

Pfizer Canada ULC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

S 8 Patented Medicines (notice of Compliance) Regulations Damages Action / Pre Trial Interlocutory Appeal of Prothonotary Disclosure Order (motion to Compel Further Affidavit of Documents)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prothonotary misstated the test for ordering a further and better affidavit of documents relating to rebates
  2. 2 Whether the prothonotary misapplied the test for relevance regarding source rebate documents
  3. 3 Whether the prothonotary failed to recognize Pharmascience's ongoing disclosure obligation

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the prothonotary did not commit a reviewable error: he applied the correct legal test, properly considered relevance and proportionality in context (timing, prior discovery, burden, and limited evidentiary value of the requested source documents) and retained case management authority to revisit disclosure if experts rely on undisclosed materials; therefore no order for further disclosure was required.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; motion dismissed

Orders

  • Motion dismissed
  • Costs in any event of the cause