Publication
Loi sur la laïcité de l’État : la Cour d’appel du Québec statue sur sa constitutionnalité
La Loi sur la laïcité de l’État (Loi) a fait couler beaucoup d’encre depuis son adoption en juin 2019.
Auteur:
Mondial | Publication | July 2016
Case: Apotex Inc. v Minister of Health et al., 2016 FC 776
Nature of case: Appeal from Order granting leave to add party to judicial review application
Successful party: Information Commissioner of Canada
Date of decision: July 8, 2016
The Federal Court dismissed Apotex Inc.’s appeal from a prothonotary’s order granting the Information Commissioner of Canada (Commissioner) leave to be added as a respondent to Apotex’s applications for judicial review.
The underlying judicial review applications arise out of three separate but identical decisions of the Minister of Health (Minister) to disclose information from Apotex’s Abbreviated New Drug Submission (ANDS) in response to an access to information request (ATI).
On September 8, 2015, Apotex commenced the three applications for judicial review of the Minister’s decision. Apotex alleged that the Minister erred in its decision to disclose this information as it contains:
In its application, Apotex also alleged a lack of procedural fairness on the part of the Minister in reaching the decision to disclose the information.
On April 4, 2016, the prothonotary granted the Commissioner’s motion requesting that the Commissioner be added as a respondent to the applications in accordance with paragraph 42(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act.
On appeal, the Federal Court found that the prothonotary made no error of law in failing to apply the stringent test of “necessity” for adding a party to a proceeding pursuant to Rule 104 of the Federal Courts Rules (Rules). The prothonotary correctly relied on paragraph 42(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act as the basis for adding the Commissioner as a respondent. The Federal Court found that there must be some interplay between the Rules and a statutory provision such as paragraph 42(1)(c) that permits a party to be added with leave of the Court.
Further, the Federal Court dismissed Apotex’s allegation that the prothonotary breached procedural fairness by failing to consider Apotex’s submissions and its request for an oral hearing on the motion. The Federal Court found that the prothonotary’s reference to the “Applicant’s Motion Record” referred to Apotex as the applicant in the proceeding, and not the Commissioner, even though the Commisioner was the applicant on the motion.
The lack of a specific reference to Apotex’s request for an oral hearing also did not support Apotex’s argument that its submissions were not considered. A prothonorary is not obliged to hold an oral hearing or to provide reasons for not doing so.
The Federal Court found that a discretionary decision of a prothonotary should only be interfered with where question on the motion is vital to the final issue in the case, or where the order was clearly wrong, proceeded on a wrong principle, or misapprehended the facts.
Apotex argued that the standard of review to be applied by the Court should be the appellate standard of review articulated by the Supreme Court in Housen v Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33 of palpable and overriding error. This is consistent with the Federal Court of Appeal’s recent effort to homogenize the standard of review (reported on here and here).
Apotex has appealed the decision.
Federal Court Decision: Apotex Inc. v Minister of Health et al., 2016 FC 776
Order of Prothonotary (unreported): Order dated April 4, 2016
Publication
La Loi sur la laïcité de l’État (Loi) a fait couler beaucoup d’encre depuis son adoption en juin 2019.
Publication
Le 13 mars dernier, le Conseil canadien des normes d’information sur la durabilité (CCNID) a publié deux exposés-sondages sur les normes canadiennes.
Publication
Le 6 mars 2024, la Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) des États Unis a adopté des règles définitives, à la suite d’un vote 3-2, qui ont pour effet d’obliger les personnes inscrites nationales et étrangères ainsi que les émetteurs fermés étrangers à communiquer de l’information liée aux changements climatiques dans leurs déclarations d’inscription et rapports annuels (les règles définitives).
Abonnez-vous et restez à l’affût des nouvelles juridiques, informations et événements les plus récents...
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023