Glaxo Wellcome plc v. Minister of National Revenue, (1998) 228 N.R. 164 (FCA)

• Judge: Stone, Létourneau, and Robertson, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: March 25, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1998), 228 N.R. 164 (FCA)

Glaxo Wellcome plc v. MNR (1998), 228 N.R. 164 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] N.R. TBEd. JL.010

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

(A-908-97; A-909-97)

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

Federal Court of Appeal

Stone, Létourneau, and

Robertson, JJ.A.

June 17, 1998.

Summary:

The Minister of National Revenue, acting pursuant to s. 108(1) of the Customs Act, decided not to disclose the identity of importers of certain shipments of the drug ranitidine hydrochloride into Canada in 1995 and 1996. Glaxo Wellcome, alleging in­fringement of its patents on the drug, applied for judicial review of the Minister's decision and sought an order directing the Minister to disclose the names of the importers. Glaxo Wellcome also applied for a bill of discovery to enable it to examine the Minister respect­ing the identification of the importers.

In two decisions reported 142 F.T.R. 178 and 142 F.T.R. 181, the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the appli­cations. Glaxo Wellcome appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal respecting judicial review but allowed it respecting the bill of discovery.

Administrative Law - Topic 8264

Administrative powers - Discretionary powers - Fettering of discretion - [See first Customs - Topic 8345 ].

Courts - Topic 4011

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - General - Equitable relief - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the Federal Court of Canada had jurisdiction to grant a bill of discovery - See paragraphs 31 to 33.

Crown - Topic 2206

Crown privilege or prerogative - General - When not available - [See Practice - Topic 4158 ].

Customs - Topic 8345

Offences and penalties - Disclosure of information - Prohibition - Exceptions - The Minister of National Revenue, acting pursuant to s. 108(1) of the Customs Act, decided not to disclose the identity of importers of certain shipments of the drug ranitidine hydrochloride into Canada in 1995 and 1996 - Glaxo Wellcome, alleging infringement of its patents on the drug, applied for judicial review and sought an order directing the Minister to disclose the identity of the importers - Glaxo Wellcome argued that the Minister had fettered his discretion by blindly following depart­mental guidelines and basing himself on irrelevant considerations including the availability of other methods to obtain the importers' names - The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of the appli­cation - See paragraphs 16 to 19.

Customs - Topic 8345

Offences and penalties - Disclosure of information - Prohibition - Exceptions - [See second Equity - Topic 1142 ].

Equity - Topic 1002

Equitable relief - General - Interplay between equitable and statute-based reme­dies - Section 108(1) of the Customs Act gave the Minister discretion to disclose information to persons he authorized - Section 108(2) gave the court the power to order production of information obtained under the Act - A party sought the equitable remedy of a bill of discovery to examine the Minister - The Federal Court of Appeal, on appeal, allowed the appli­cation - The court discussed the availabili­ty of an equitable remedy in a statutory context and held that the Act could not be characterized as an exhaustive statutory code that excluded equitable remedies - The court added that s. 108(2) could be construed as incorporating equitable reme­dies, including the bill of discovery, where a court of record determined that such relief was appropriate - See paragraphs 35 to 43.

Equity - Topic 1142

Equitable relief - Practice - Bill of dis­covery - The Federal Court of Appeal discussed the equitable remedy of a bill of discovery and the requirements for obtain­ing it - See paragraphs 20 to 30.

Equity - Topic 1142

Equitable relief - Practice - Bill of dis­covery - The Minister of National Reve­nue, acting pursuant to s. 108(1) of the Customs Act, decided not to disclose the identity of importers of certain shipments of the drug ranitidine hydrochloride into Canada in 1995 and 1996 - Glaxo Wellcome, alleging infringement of its patents on the drug, sought a bill of dis­covery to enable it to examine the Minister respecting the identification of the importers - The Federal Court of Appeal, on appeal, allowed the application where: (1) Glaxo Wellcome had a bona fide or legitimate claim; (2) other avenues for obtaining the information, including com­plaint and judicial review under the Access to Information Act and audit procedures under compulsory license agreements between Glaxo Wellcome and its licensees, were ineffective; and (3) public interest favoured disclosure - See paragraphs 44 to 62.

Equity - Topic 1142

Equitable relief - Practice - Bill of dis­covery - The Minister of National Reve­nue, acting pursuant to s. 108(1) of the Customs Act, decided not to disclose the identity of importers of certain shipments of the drug ranitidine hydrochloride into Canada in 1995 and 1996 - Glaxo Wellcome, alleging infringement of its patents on the drug, sought a bill of dis­covery to enable it to examine the Minister respecting the identification of the importers - The Federal Court of Appeal, on appeal, allowed the application but awarded the discovery costs to the Minister because he was innocent of the alleged patent infringements, the case was novel, the remedy sought was exceptional and the Minister was justified in refusing dis­closure in the absence of a court order - See paragraphs 66 to 68.

Practice - Topic 4158

Discovery - General principles - Discovery of Crown - The Minister of National Reve­nue, acting pursuant to s. 108(1) of the Customs Act, decided not to disclose the identity of importers of certain shipments of the drug ranitidine hydrochloride into Canada in 1995 and 1996 - Glaxo Wellcome, alleging infringement of its patents on the drug, sought a bill of dis­covery to enable it to examine the Minister respecting the identification of the importers - The Federal Court of Appeal, on appeal, allowed the application, absent binding authority that Crown immunity from disclosure extended to the exercise of the court's equitable jurisdiction - See paragraphs 63, 64.

Practice - Topic 4185

Discovery - Examination - General - Costs - General - [See third Equity - Topic 1142 ].

Practice - Topic 7029

Costs - Party and party costs - Entitlement to party and party costs - Successful party - Exceptions - Novel or important point - [See third Equity - Topic 1142 ].

Cases Noticed:

Norwich Pharmacal Co. v. Customs and Excise Commissioners, [1974] A.C. 133 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 14].

Crompton (Alfred) Amusement Machines Ltd. v. Customs and Excise Com­missioners (No. 2), [1974] A.C. 405 (H.L.), dist. [para. 14].

Maple Lodge Farms Ltd. v. Canada and Minister of Economic Development, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2; 44 N.R. 354, consd. [para. 17].

Dawkins v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1992] 1 F.C. 639; 45 F.T.R. 198 (T.D.), consd. [para. 17].

Wilson v. Church (1878), 9 Ch. D. 378 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20, footnote 11].

MacRae v. Lecompte (1983), 143 D.L.R.(3d) 219 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 20, footnote 11].

British Steel Corp. v. Granada Television Ltd., [1981] 1 All E.R. 417 (C.A.), consd. [para. 21].

Bankers Trust Co. v. Shapira and others, [1980] 3 All E.R. 353 (C.A.), consd. [para. 21].

RCA Corp. and others v. Reddingtons Rare Records, [1975] 1 All E.R. 38 (Ch. Div.), refd to. [para. 29].

X Ltd. v. Morgan Grampian (Publishers) Ltd. et al., [1991] 1 A.C. 1; 110 N.R. 367 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 29].

Pressed Steel Car Co. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (1917), 240 F. 135 (S.D. N.Y.), refd to. [para. 29, footnote 13].

Sinclair Refining Co. v. Jenkins Petroleum Process Co. (1932), 53 U.S. 736, refd to. [para. 29, footnote 13].

Johnston (Frank) Restaurants Ltd., Re (1980), 33 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 341; 93 A.P.R. 341 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Comeau, Re (1986), 77 N.S.R.(2d) 57; 191 A.P.R. 57 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 30].

Leahy v. Dr. A.B. (1992), 113 N.S.R.(2d) 417; 309 A.P.R. 417 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 30].

Reekie et al. v. Messervey et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 219; 104 N.R. 387, refd to. [para. 31].

Teledyne Industries Inc. et al. v. Lido Industrial Products Ltd. (1982), 68 C.P.R.(2d) 204 (F.C.T.D.), consd. [para. 32].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immi­gration) v. Tobiass et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 391; 218 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 34].

Visx Inc. v. Nidek Co. et al. (1996), 209 N.R. 342 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Rawluk v. Rawluk, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 70; 103 N.R. 321; 38 O.A.C. 81; 23 R.F.L.(3d) 337; 65 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 36 E.T.R. 1, consd. [para. 36].

Zaidan Group Ltd. v. London (City) (1990), 36 O.A.C. 384; 71 O.R.(2d) 65 (C.A.), affd. [1991] 3 S.C.R. 593; 129 N.R. 227; 50 O.A.C. 1, consd. [para. 37].

Keable and Québec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 218; 24 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 63].

Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Code (1988), 84 A.R. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

Attorney General v. London Corp. (1850), 42 E.R. 95 (Ch.), consd. [para. 64].

Deare v. Attorney General (1835), 160 E.R. 80 (Ex. Div.), refd to. [para. 64].

Statutes Noticed:

Access to Information Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1, sect. 24(1) [para. 48].

Customs Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 1, sect. 107(1), sect. 108(1), sect. 108(2), sect. 108(3) [para. 15].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 3 [para. 32].

Federal Court Rules, rule 224(1)(d), rule 237(3) [para. 63, footnote 23].

Finance Act 1967 (U.K.), 1967, c. 54, sect. 3(1), sect. 3(2), sect. 3(3) [para. 22, footnote 12].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Barron, R.F., Existence and Nature of Cause of Action for Equitable Bill of Discovery (1996), 37 A.L.R.(5th) 645, generally [para. 29, footnote 13].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (3rd Ed. 1994), pp. 298, 307, 309 [para. 36].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed. 1976), vol. 13, pp. 18, 19 [para. 20, footnote 11].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed. 1992 - Reissue), vol. 16, pp. 655, 656 [para. 20, footnote 10].

Hogg, Peter W., Liability of the Crown (2nd Ed. 1989), pp. 30, 31 [para. 63, footnote 22].

Hughes, Roger T., and Woodley, John H., Patents (1984), para. 36 [para. 30, foot­note 15].

Lordon, Paul, Crown Law (1991), pp. 522, 523 [para. 63, footnote 22].

McLachlin, B., The Place of Equity and Equitable Doctrines in the Contemporary Common Law World: A Canadian Perspective in Equity, Fiduciaries and Trusts (1993)(D.W.M. Waters, ed.), p. 39 [para. 33].

Smith, J.W., A Treatise on the Pleadings in Suits in the Court of Chancery by English Bill (5th Ed. 1847), pp. 36, 64, 172 [para. 20, footnote 9].

Snell, Principles of Equity (29th Ed. 1990), pp. 28 [para. 20, footnote 10]; 582 [para. 20, footnotes 9, 10].

Story, J., Commentaries on Equity Juris­prudence as Administered in England and America (13th Ed. 1886), vol. 2, pp. 810 to 830 [para. 20, footnote 9].

Waters, D.W.M., ed., Equity, Fiduciaries and Trusts (1993), p. 39 [para. 33].

Wigram, J., Points in the Law of Dis­covery (2nd Ed. 1840), pp. 2, 5 [para. 20, footnote 9].

Counsel:

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

Christopher Rupar and Janice Palmer, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Ogilvy Renault, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

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

These appeals were heard on March 25, 1998, at Ottawa, Ontario, by Stone, Létourneau and Robertson, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal.

On June, 17, 1998, Stone, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.