Practice
Discovery
“Implied Undertaking Rule”—Motion seeking relief from implied undertaking rule—Implied undertaking of confidentiality preventing use of information obtained in discovery from being used other than in litigation in which information disclosed—Supreme Court of Canada reinforcing rule in Lac d’Amiante du Québec Ltée v. 2858-0702 Québec Inc., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 743, but indicating courts retaining power to relieve persons of obligation where in interests of justice—Court must weigh prejudice to be suffered if relief not granted against resulting prejudice if sought-after information disclosed—Federal Court holding in Visx Inc. v. Nidek Co. (1998), 80 C.P.R. (3d) 437 (T.D.) test for relief from implied undertaking rule requiring consideration of existence of special circumstances, weighing of injustice between parties between granting or denying application for relief from rule—Visx test not adding anything to more general test identified in Lac d’Amiante, not distinguishing between factors to be considered at “special circumstance”, “interests of justice” stages—All surrounding circumstances considered herein—Motion dismissed with one exception.
Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc. (T-161-07, 2008 FC 320, Snider J., order dated March 7, 2008, 20 pp.)