PRATIQUE
Affidavits
Motion pursuant to Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, r. 227 for order requiring plaintiffs to serve further, better affidavit of documents—Defendant must establish existence of relevant documents in possession of plaintiffs not listed in affidavits of documents or subsequently produced—Prior to 1998 revision, Federal Courts Rules silent re: definition of relevance, Compagnie Financière du Pacifique v. Peruvian Guano Company (1882), 11 Q.B.D. 55 (C.A.) test applied—Relevant document now defined in r. 222(2)—Concept of advancing opponent’s case or defeating one’s own case central to relevance both on Peruvian Guano test and strict wording of r. 222(2)—Party producing affidavit not obliged to disclose document unless reasonable to suppose document would undermine own case, advance its opponents, or would fairly lead to train of inquiry having either of these two consequences—Defendant herein not entitled to every document in plaintiffs’ possession—Unless defendant establishing plaintiffs’ vetting process inadequate, sworn statements in affidavits as to disclosure sufficient—Plaintiffs ordered to review documents, serve revised affidavits of documents—Motion granted in part.
Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd. (T-1048-07, 2007 FC 1195, Tabib P., order dated 15/11/07, 29 pp.)