Decisions of Case Management Prothonotaries Entitled to Discretion Unless Prothonotary Was Clearly Wrong.
Astrazeneca Canada Inc., et al. v. Novopharm Limited and Minister of Health, 2009 FC 1020 (Kelen, J.)

October 8, 2009

Gunars Gaikis and Urszula Wojtyra for Astrazeneca Canada Inc., et al. (Astrazeneca)
Jonathan Stanisby, Lesley Caswell and Andrew McIntyre for Novopharm Limited (Novopharm)

This case involved an appeal from the decision of Prothonotary Aalto granting Novopharm leave to file reply affidavits.   

The Appellants (Astrazeneca) did not submit that the Prothonotary’s Order was vital to the case so the Court did not hear the appeal on a de novo basis but rather considered that the standard of review was simply whether the Prothonotary was “clearly wrong”.  The Court held that case management Prothonotaries ought to be given latitude and wide discretion to move cases forward and the Court should only interfere in the clearest of cases where the Prothonotary has misapplied or misused his or her judicial discretion, i.e. made a mistake that was clearly wrong.  In this case the Court held that the Prothonotary applied the correct legal test and legal principles pursuant to the Patent Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations to determine whether rely evidence ought to be allowed, and did not misapprehend the facts.

By: Rosamaria Longo, Lang Michener LLP