3 total
Motion to strike expert affidavits in judicial review proceeding granted in part.
The Respondent brought a motion to strike three affidavits filed by the Applicant in an underlying application for judicial review of a redetermination decision of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board.
The Court granted the motion in part, striking the affidavit of the Applicant's patent expert in full and portions of a regulatory expert affidavit on the basis that they provided improper opinion evidence that sought to argue against the merits of the tribunal's decision.
The Court allowed a fact witness affidavit to stand as it provided non-controversial background information.
Rule 227 motion dismissed as plaintiff failed to prove further documents likely existed.
In an action for patent infringement regarding internet search engine advertising systems, the plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 227 of the Federal Courts Rules seeking an order requiring the defendants to produce a further and better affidavit of documents or to allow cross-examination on their affidavit of documents.
The plaintiff argued that the defendants' amended defence and expert reports introduced new theories of non-infringing alternatives, suggesting further undisclosed documents likely existed.
The Court found that the plaintiff's arguments were largely speculative and failed to meet the burden of showing that further documents likely existed with convincing evidence.
The motion was dismissed, but the defendants were ordered to serve a current sworn or affirmed affidavit of documents to reflect additional productions made since their original affidavit.
Motion for further affidavit of documents partially granted; plaintiffs ordered to produce financial records relevant to damages.
The defendants brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiffs to serve a further and better affidavit of documents, specifically seeking financial documents relevant to the plaintiffs' damages claims.
The plaintiffs argued that the defendants were precluded from seeking these documents because they had agreed to a Discovery Plan that excluded them.
The court found that the defendants had explicitly reserved their right to pursue the financial information when agreeing to the Discovery Plan.
The court ordered the plaintiffs to produce their financial statements and tax returns, as they were relevant to the claims for business losses, but declined to order production of other speculative documents at this stage.
