Date: 19971218
Docket: A-287-97
CORAM: PRATTE, J.A.
ROBERTSON, J.A.
GRAY, D.J.
BETWEEN:
PFIZER CANADA INC. and
PFIZER CORPORATION
Appellants
(Applicants)
- and -
APOTEX INC. and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE
Respondents
(Respondents)
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, Thursday December 18, 1997
Judgment delivered at Toronto, Ontario, Thursday December 18, 1997
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: PRATTE, J.A.
Date: 19971218
Docket: A-287-97
CORAM: PRATTE, J.A.
ROBERTSON, J.A.
GRAY, D.J.
BETWEEN:
PFIZER CANADA INC. and
PFIZER CORPORATION
Appellants
(Applicants)
- and -
APOTEX INC. and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE
Respondents
(Respondents)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
PRATTE, J.A.:
[1] The judge of first instance found that Mr. Hughes was not in breach of the Protective Order of October 31, 1994, for two reasons. First, he held that the order, as he understood it, does not prohibit the disclosure of all the documents that have been stamped "Confidential" and second, that the information disclosed by Mr. Hughes, although contained in a document stamped "Confidential" by the appellant, was in fact information that was confidential to Apotex, Mr. Hughes' client.
[2] We are all of the view that the judge of first instance gave a wrong interpretation to the Protective Order which, as we read it, clearly prohibits the disclosure of all documents stamped confidential unless the disclosure is authorized by an order of the Court on or by the party who produced the document.
[3] If the information disclosed by Mr. Hughes was, as found by the judge of first instance, confidential to Mr. Hughes' client rather than to the appellant, that fact would tend to show that Mr. Hughes acted in good faith and that the breach of the injunction was merely technical; it should therefore be taken into account in fixing the penalty to be imposed on
Mr. Hughes.
[4] The appeal will be allowed, the order of the Trial Division will be set aside,
Mr. Hughes will be found to have breached the terms of the Protective Order and to have been, for that reason, in contempt of Court. The matter will be remitted to the Trial Division for determination of the penalty to be imposed and of the proper order to be made as to the costs of these proceedings both in the Trial Division and here.
"Louis Pratte"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19971218
Docket: A-287-97
BETWEEN:
PFIZER CANADA INC. and
PFIZER CORPORATION
Appellants
(Applicants)
- and -
APOTEX INC. and THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE
Respondents
(Respondents)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: A-287-97
| STYLE OF CAUSE: PFIZER CANADA INC. and |
| APOTEX INC. and THE MINISTER OF |
| NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE |
DATE OF HEARING: DECEMBER 18, 1997
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: PRATTE, J.A.
DATED: DECEMBER 18, 1997
APPEARANCES: Charles E. Beall
John R. Rudolph
For the Appellants (Applicants)
Claude R. Thomson, Q.C.
Andrea Horton
For Ivor Hughes
-2-
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Barristers and Solicitors
Charles E. Beall, Emma A.C. Grell,
| Suite 2600-160 Elgin Street |
Box 466, Station "D"
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 1C3
For the Appellants (Applicants)
Fasken Campbell Godfrey
Barristers and Solicitors
Claude R. Thomson, Q.C.
Toronto Dominion Bank Tower
Box 20, Suite 4200
Toronto Dominion Centre
Toronto, Ontario
M5K 1N6
For Ivor Hughes
Goodman, Phillips & Vineberg
Barristers and Solicitors
Benjamin Zarnett
250 Yonge Street
Box 24, Suite 2400
Toronto, Ontario
M5B 2M6
For the Respondent Apotex Inc.
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent The Minister of
National Health and Welfare
Email this Content