Merck & Co. Inc. v. Apotex Inc.

Merck & Co. Inc. v. Apotex Inc.

The prothonotary applied the wrong legal principle by subordinating the statutory right to answer relevant discovery questions (Rule 240) to case management expediency; the Federal Court allowed the motion, found error in principle, and referred the matter back to Prothonotary Morneau to re-determine whether the specified questions should be answered (and whether re-attendance is required) in light of the Federal Court of Appeal guidance; costs awarded to Apotex.

Citation
2003 FC 1483
Parties
Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim): Merck & Co., Inc.; Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim): Merck Frosst Canada & Co.; Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim): Syngenta Limited; Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim): AstraZeneca UK Limited; Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim): AstraZeneca Canada Inc.; Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim): Apotex Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Motion to Set Aside Prothonotary Discovery Decision; Appeal to Federal Court / Pre Trial — Discovery Motion
Outcome
Motion granted; matter referred back to Prothonotary Morneau for re-determination in light of the Court of Appeal decision; costs awarded to Apotex.
Legal Topics
Standard of Review, Relevance in Discovery, Case Management Powers, Compelled Discovery, Appeal From Prothonotary
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Patent Law Discovery Case Management Standard of Review Relevance in Discovery Case Management Powers Compelled Discovery +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

Merck & Co., Inc.

Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim)

Merck Frosst Canada & Co.

Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim)

Syngenta Limited

Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim)

AstraZeneca UK Limited

Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim)

AstraZeneca Canada Inc.

Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim)

Apotex Inc.

Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Motion to Set Aside Prothonotary Discovery Decision; Appeal to Federal Court / Pre Trial — Discovery Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What standard of review applies to a prothonotary's discovery decision?
  2. 2 Did the prothonotary err in law by subordinating relevance to case management and thus improperly refuse discovery?
  3. 3 Should the Federal Court exercise de novo jurisdiction or remit to the prothonotary for re-determination?

Ratio Decidendi

The prothonotary applied the wrong legal principle by subordinating the statutory right to answer relevant discovery questions (Rule 240) to case management expediency; the Federal Court allowed the motion, found error in principle, and referred the matter back to Prothonotary Morneau to re-determine whether the specified questions should be answered (and whether re-attendance is required) in light of the Federal Court of Appeal guidance; costs awarded to Apotex.

Court Disposition

Motion granted; matter referred back to Prothonotary Morneau for re-determination in light of the Court of Appeal decision; costs awarded to Apotex.

Orders

  • Motion granted.
  • Matter referred back to Prothonotary Morneau for re-determination in light of the Reasons for Judgment of the Court of Appeal dated November 20, 2003 (A-112-03) and for re-determination of whether Dr. Wyvratt should re-attend for discovery to answer the listed questions and any follow-up, unless Apotex indicates it...