The applicants sought to file two further affidavits in reply. The first affidavit attached a letter from Health Canada. The Court held that this letter amounted to an opinion by an Associate Director of the Office of Patented Medicines and Liaison, and cannot be considered evidence as it is not an affidavit. The letter was determined to be hearsay, which is a sufficient basis to reject the application to file the letter as evidence.

The second affidavit sought to be filed was by a doctor who had only recently been able to locate reports that addressed an allegation of a lack of sound prediction. As this same researcher had filed an affidavit in chief and had not made note of these additional reports, the Court found that the generic company would suffer prejudice if it had to take these new reports to their experts at this late stage.

The motion to file reply evidence was dismissed with costs.

The full text of the decision can be found at: