PRACTICE |
Case Management |
Merck & Co., Inc. v. Apotex Inc.
T-2792-98
2003 FCT 160, Noël J.
13/2/03
10 pp.
Appeal by defendant of order of prothonotary dismissing defendant's motion to compel answers to questions which plaintiffs refused to answer during examination for discovery --Whether prothonotary exercised discretion based on wrong principle or misapprehension of facts so as to render decision clearly wrong--Regarding meaning of discretion in situations requiring order for answers, prothonotary's order within prothonotary's discretionary powers--Important to give more latitude to case management judges or prothonotaries in order for them to manage case according to objectives of Court Rules--Position of Federal Court of Appeal on appeals from orders of case management judges clearly stated in Sawridge Band v. Canada, [2002] 2 F.C. 346 (C.A.)--Approach applies to discretionary decisions of prothonotaries made in course of case management in complex matters--Person responsible for specially managed proceeding has discretion broad enough to move case forward--Prothonotary not obligated to restrict himself only to relevancy test--Prothonotary exercised discretion in weighing relevance of questions and scope of pleadings against need to ensure proceedings resolved expeditiously--In applying Rules, prothonotary appropriately considered reducing cost of trial and bringing matters to trial as quickly as possible--Appeal dismissed.