Apotex Inc. v. Pharmascience Inc., 2005 FCA 144

Date: 20050419

Docket: A-463-04

Citation: 2005 FCA 144

CORAM:        RICHARD C.J.

NOËL J. A.

SEXTON J.A.

BETWEEN:

APOTEX INC. and

BERNARD CHARLES SHERMAN

Appellants

(Plaintiffs/Defendants by Counterclaim)

                                                                           and

PHARMASCIENCE INC.

                                                                                                                                       Respondent

(Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim)

                                          Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on April 19^th, 2005.

                    Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on April 19^th, 2005.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:                                                RICHARD C.J.

Date: 20050419

Docket: A-463-04

Citation: 2005 FCA 144

CORAM:        RICHARD C.J.

NOËL J. A.

SEXTON J.A.

BETWEEN:

APOTEX INC. and

BERNARD CHARLES SHERMAN

Appellants

(Plaintiffs/Defendants by Counterclaim)

                                                                           and

PHARMASCIENCE INC.

                                                                                                                                       Respondent

(Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim)

                                     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

                        (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on April 19, 2005)

RICHARD C.J.

[1]                This is an appeal by the appellants from an order of Justice Blais dated August 31, 2004 (2004 FC 1198) upholding the order of Prothonotary Aronovitch dated April 20, 2004 which dismissed the appellants' motion to compel answers to certain questions put to the respondent's representative during examination for discovery.

[2]                We are all of the view that the Federal Court Judge made no error of law or any other kind of error that warrants the intervention of this Court.

[3]                He first determined that the order did not raise a question vital to the final issue of the case. He then determined that the prothonotary had not applied a wrong principle of law or misapprehended the facts in exercising her discretion.

[4]                Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed with costs.

       "J. Richard"

                                                                                                                                         Chief Justice                    

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                  A-463-04

STYLE OF CAUSE:                   APOTEX INC. and

BERNARD CHARLES SHERMAN

Appellants

(Plaintiffs/Defendants by Counterclaim)

and                                                       

PHARMASCIENCE INC.

Respondent

(Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim)

PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:    APRIL 19, 2005

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

OF THE COURT BY:                 RICHARD C.J.

NOËL J.A.

SEXTON J.A.

DELIVERED FROM THE

BENCH BY:                              RICHARD C.J.

APPEARANCES:

David E. Lederman                    FOR THE APPELLANTS

(PLAINTIFFS/DEFENDANTS BY COUNTERCLAIM)                              

Paula Bremner               FOR THE RESPONDENT

(DEFENDANT/PLAINTIFF BY COUNTERCLAIM)

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Goodmans LLP                                    

Toronto, Ontario                         FOR THE APPELLANTS

(PLAINTIFFS/DEFENDANTS BY COUNTERCLAIM)

HITCHMAN & SPRIGINGS

Toronto, Ontario                         FOR THE RESPONDENT

(DEFENDANT/PLAINTIFF BY COUNTERCLAIM)