Hospira Healthcare Corporation v. Kennedy Institute, 2016 FC 436 (Infliximab*)
Justice Boswell - 2015-06-18
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
According to R. v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., 1993 CanLII 2939 (FCA),  2 F.C. 425 (C.A.) at paragraph 67, discretionary orders of prothonotaries should not be disturbed on appeal unless (a) they are clearly wrong, in the sense that the exercise of discretion by the prothonotary was based upon a wrong principle or upon a misapprehension of the facts, or (b) in making such orders, the prothonotary improperly exercised her discretion on a question vital to the final issue of the case. Inasmuch as the Prothonotary’s decision involved an exercise of discretion, the Moving Parties here had a high hurdle to cross, and they failed to establish that the Prothonotary exercised her discretion on the basis of an erroneous view of the law or a misapprehension of the facts, or was otherwise non-judicial. Indeed, upon review of the Prothonotary’s decision as to the re-attendance of the inventors in view of the procedural history of this matter to date, her Order in this regard is not only a focused decision but a reasonable one as well.
Decision relates to:
- T-396-13 - HOSPIRA HEALTHCARE CORPORATION v. THE KENNEDY INSTITUTE OF RHEUMATOLOGY
- A-303-15(2016 FCA 215) - which is an appeal from this decision