Glaxo Wellcome plc v. Minister of National Revenue, (1998) 225 N.R. 28 (FCA)

• Judge: Stone, J.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: March 13, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1998), 225 N.R. 28 (FCA)

Glaxo Wellcome plc v. MNR (1998), 225 N.R. 28 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] N.R. TBEd. AP.008

Glaxo Wellcome plc (appellant) v. The Minister of National Revenue (respondent)

(A-908-97)

Indexed As: Glaxo Wellcome plc v. Minister of National Revenue

Federal Court of Appeal

Stone, J.A.

March 13, 1998.

Summary:

The Minister of National Revenue, acting

pursuant to s. 108(1) of the Customs Act, rendered a decision not to disclose to Glaxo Wellcome the identity of importers of certain shipments of the drug ranitidine hydro­chloride into Canada in 1995 and 1996. Glaxo Wellcome applied for judicial review of this decision and sought an order directing the Minister to disclose the identity of importers of the drug into Canada in 1995, 1996 and 1997. In a related case, Glaxo Wellcome sought the equitable remedy of a bill of discovery to examine the Minister of National Revenue.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Di­vision, in decisions reported at 142 F.T.R. 178 and 142 F.T.R. 181, dismissed both appli­cations. Glaxo Wellcome appealed. Glaxo Wellcome moved to have fresh evi­dence received in the appeals.

The Federal Court of Appeal, per Stone, J.A., allowed the motion.

Practice - Topic 9031

Appeals - Evidence on appeal - Admission of "new evidence" - Glaxo held two patents on the drug ranitidine hydro­chloride and wanted to identify alleged infringers in order to protect its patents - Glaxo sought disclosure by the Minister of National Revenue of the names of importers of shipments of the drug - The Minister refused to disclose the names - Glaxo applied for judicial review of the Minister's decision - Glaxo also applied for a bill of discovery to examine the Minister to obtain the names of importers of certain shipments of the drug - The motions judge dismissed both applications - Glaxo appealed - Glaxo applied to intro­duce fresh evidence on the appeals - The Federal Court of Appeal held that there were sufficient special circumstances to warrant allowing fresh evidence on the appeals.

Cases Noticed:

Brunckhorst (Frank) Co. et al. v. Gainers Inc. et al., [1993] F.C.J. No. 874 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Smith & Nephew Inc. et al. v. Glen Oak Inc. et al. (1996), 192 N.R. 271 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Goldner v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (1974), 1 N.R. 420 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Alberta Wheat Pool v. Canada Labour Relations Board and Grain Services Union (C.L.C.) (1992), 151 N.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Lubrizol Corp. et al. v. Imperial Oil Ltd. et al. (1995), 191 N.R. 244 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Dormunt et al. v. Untereiner et al., [1964] S.C.R. 122, refd to. [para. 8].

Brown v. Gentleman, [1971] S.C.R. 501, refd to. [para. 8].

Harper v. Harper, [1980] S.C.R. 2; 27 N.R. 554, refd to. [para. 8].

Amchem Products Inc. et al. v. Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.) (1992), 192 N.R. 390 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 8].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Rules, rule 1102 [para. 6].

Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, sect. 62(3) [para. 8, footnote 1].

Counsel:

Brenda C. Swick-Martin and Sally A. Gomery, for the appellant;

Christopher Rupar, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Ogilvy Renault, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

George Thomson, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This motion was heard on March 13, 1998, before Stone, J.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal, who delivered the following judg­ment orally on March 13, 1998.