In this case, there was an Order for partial reversal of evidence. Apotex brought a motion to strike substantial portions of the affidavits of three of Pfizer’s experts on validity, alleging that they relied on an extensive number of clinical studies and other documents which Apotex argues are facts, and should have been disclosed as part of the “fact” evidence.
The Court held that Directions of the Court carry the weight of judicial decision making and are the expectation of what will happen in the conduct of a case. However, as there was dispute over the meaning of “fact” evidence, the Court held that it could not be definitively said that the Court’s Direction was contravened. The Court struck portions of Pfizer’s affidavits, criticising Apotex’ witnesses for not commenting on certain pieces of art cited by Pfizer’s experts. Apotex was granted reply with respect to other issues