In a refusals motion arising from discovery in a pharmaceutical product liability action, the court addressed one remaining question concerning whether related United States claims involving the same drug were similar to the claims advanced in Ontario.
The court held the question, as pressed in submissions, was vague and in substance sought disclosure of the criteria used in case-specific settlement analyses of U.S. claims.
That information was protected by settlement privilege, which extends to subsequent unrelated proceedings.
Although the moving party was unsuccessful on the argued refusal, it obtained costs on the motion because most refusals were answered only after the motion became necessary.
