Date: 2004-07-27. Docket: T-294-96. Martineau, J. | Link
This is a patent infringement case. Following a summary judgment, McKeown J. granted a declaration that Apotex infringed Merck’s ‘349 patent.

Date: 2013-03-25. Docket: 05-CV030917. Master Macleod. | Link
Motion regarding documents which the defendants have withheld as privileged. The plaintiff was unsuccessful in its bid for a contract to provide certain public health services. The plaintiff seeks damages, alleging improper tendering practices on the part of the defendant.

Date: 2013-07-16. Docket: 12-53627. Master Macleod. | Link
This decision relates to a motion for further and better affidavits of documents. The underlying dispute concerns the early termination of a commercial lease.

Date: 2012-11-21. Docket: 06-CV-311330CP. Perell, J. | Link
Class action by past and present Quiznos franchisees alleging price maintenance conspiracy and breach of contract. Several motions, including plaintiff’s motion for the defendants to deliver a further and better affidavit of documents. Quiznos produced its documents in TIFF, as per the discovery plan agreed to by the parties. The Plaintiffs requested Quiznos to re-produce copies of the native Excel documents and Quiznos refused. The court found that Quiznos’ refusal is a technicality (they honoured the discovery plan) and that there would be no hardship in providing the excel files. The court found that discovery plans are important, but they can be modified. Quiznos was ordered to re-produce the readily available Excel files.

Date: 2000-07-21. Docket: T-1027-00. Reed J. | Link
Motion to side aside Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer’s ex parte order requiring Air Canada to produce records to the Commissioner of Competition for its inquiry into Air Canada’s pricing and capacity policies. Air Canada was unable to demonstrate that the information provided to Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer was incomplete, misleading or incorrect to a degree that would have led her to refuse to grant the order.

Date: 1987-05-29. Docket: 9121. | Link
Appeals from a distribution order of matrimonial property. The court awards the appellant reasonable solicitor and client costs of both appeals because “[t]hese appeals were spawned by the respondent’s failure to make full and frank disclosure of her assets and also the assets she held in trust for the benefit of the two infant children. The respondent clearly mislead the trial court on material matters. In our oral reasons of February 10, 1987, we emphasized the duty to make proper disclosure. All members of the court had difficulty in understanding the respondent’s resistance to putting the record straight even before this court. The position taken at trial and initially before this court is no less surprising when one considers that the respondent is a member of the Law Society of Saskatchewan - a person on whose integrity the court is accustomed to rely even when personally involved in litigation. When the question arose at trial the respondent should have immediately taken steps to set the record straight”.

Date: 2011-10-13. Docket: 06-CV-317618. Master R.A. Muir. | Link
Motion to set aside the order of the registrar dismissing the action for delay. Plaintiff cut her hand while opening a bottle of wine and allegedly sustained severe and permanent injuries. Vincor is the producer and distributor of the wine and the plaintiff alleged that Owens manufactured the glass bottle.

Date: 2003-10-17. Docket: 94-CQ-056153. Master Macleod. | Link
Plaintiff allegedly suffered damage to her jaw and skull and years of pain and suffering from interpositional temporomandibular joint implants (“TMJ implants”). Health Canada is a defendant in this action for allegedly failing to warn the public of risks and failing to prevent the use of TMJ implants.

Date: 2013-10-10. Docket: S/C/101/11. Glennie, J. | Link
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants used the plaintiff’s confidential information to create a loyalty program. The plaintiffs brought a motion for a further and better affidavit of documents, including all relevant emails for a time period of almost three years.

Date: 2005-11-14. Docket: 0003 08116. C.P. Clarke J. | Link
Special Chambers application as part of the case management process. The plaintiffs (respondents) allege that a fire broke out in their shovel, and that the shovel was equipped with the applicant’s fire suppression system which failed to extinguish the fire. The respondents’ insurer retained an expert to investigate the fire and value the loss. The respondents subsequently sold the salvageable part of the shovel. The portion of the shovel that would have included any remains of the fire suppression system was either lost or disposed of. The court found that the experts were retained for the dominate purpose of litigation and the reports are therefore subject to litigation privilege. The applicant argues that the respondents had a duty to preserve the physical evidence because of pending or anticipated litigation. The applicant submits that as a remedy for the spoliation, privilege should be lifted from the expert reports. The court finds that the question of spoliation should be addressed at trial when all of the evidence will be available for the trial judge’s consideration. The nature or impact of the respondents’ expert evidence, and the existence and extent of any prejudice, will not be known until trial.