Digests

Practice

Discovery

Production of Documents

Appeal from Federal Court decision (2009 FC 1316) dismissing appeal from Prothonotary’s order for further, better production of documents in infringement action—Whether Prothonotary erring in (1) accepting expert evidence from chemist employed by respondent, (2) applying relevance test—With respect to first allegation, appellant arguing chemist lacking independence, impartiality required of expert witnesses—Cases relied upon by appellant not constituting authority for proposition that testimony of properly qualified expert may be rejected on basis of lack of independence—Prothonotary not clearly wrong in assessing expert’s evidence in light of cross-examination—With regard to second allegation, appellant contending presumption of veracity attached to its regulatory filing raising bar of relevance test since documents requested unlikely to contradict regulatory filings—Party cannot resist production of documents on basis that in regulatory context, documents filed inconsistent with plaintiff’s allegations in infringement action—Likelihood of relevance not dependent on party’s good faith but on content of requested documents—Court unable to say prothonotary erring in applying broad relevance principle—Appeal dismissed.

Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Hospira Healthcare Corporation (A-13-10, 2010 FCA 282, Pelletier J.A., judgment dated October 26, 2010, 6 pp.)