Zeneca Pharma Inc. v. Canada ( Minister of National Health and Welfare )
T-1454-93
Gibson J.
18/4/94
11 pp.
Practice-Application for staying order pending determination of motion and amendment of protective order granted in proceeding-Stay of proceedings never granted as matter of course; matter calling for exercise of judicial discretion in determining whether stay should be ordered in particular circumstances of case-Power to stay should be exercised sparingly and stay only be ordered in clearest cases: Varnum v. Canada, [1987] 12 F.T.R. 34 (F.C.T.D.)-Three elements ought to be examined: serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm not compensable in damages, balance of convenience-Serious issue to be tried on appeal of order-No irreparable harm established-General principle of Court and process being open to public scrutiny, including access for public to Court documents fundamental to system of justice: Apotex Inc. & Novopharm Ltd. v. The Wellcome Foundation Limited, (T-3197-90, October 27, 1993, F.C.T.D.)-Order preventing counsel from showing relevant evidence to client in order to get instructions, while not unknown, should only be granted in very unusual circumstances; onus on defendant to establish need for such restriction on ordinary disclosure of materials which may be relevant to issues in case-Protective order existing on consent and drafted by parties but not including "For Counsel's Eyes Only" provision-In litigation involving highly technical or scientific information, information made available to counsel by virtue of court order, of little or no use if counsel cannot consult with client with respect to information-Application not granted-Extension of time to appeal granted.