Court disallows expert disbursements in patent case

Counsel should be prudent in determining when it is appropriate to retain experts and have them incur costs on your client’s behalf.

In a decision determining allowable costs of the respondent Pharmascience in a proceeding discontinued by the applicant Sanofi-Aventis under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, an assessment officer sought to determine whether expert witness disbursements totalling $17,000 could be claimed in the circumstances.

The three part test for the allowance of expert disbursements requires that:

(1) The disbursement for an expert must be prudent and reasonable in the circumstances existing at the time it was incurred;

(2) The terms of engagement must not constitute a blank cheque; and

(3) The extent of reliance on the expert by the trial judge should be a factor.

As per the third part of the test, disbursements cannot be disallowed based solely on the fact that a matter is discontinued (and thus never heard by a judge), as this would require hindsight. However, they must be reasonably incurred in the circumstances.In this case, a majority of the experts’ fees were incurred prior to the initial case management conference to set a schedule for the exchange of evidence, and were not even alleged to have been incurred in support of an early motion to dismiss. As a result, given that the ultimate burden of proof rested with the applicant Sanofi, the experts’ fees were found to be premature and therefore not allowed.

Government of Canada moves to enhance safety and security in the online marketplace

The Canadian federal government is taking aim at improving the security of Canadian online commerce. 

The Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Industry, and the Honourable Denis Lebel, Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), announced a series of amendments to the legislation protecting the personal information of Canadians (Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, or PIPEDA).

Continue Reading...
Tags:

Two courts rule on identity protection for online commentators

Courts in Nova Scotia and Ontario recently issued conflicting decisions on the ability of a plaintiff to compel a website to reveal the identities of online commentators.In both cases, the plaintiff in a defamation suit sought the identities of individuals who had posted allegedly defamatory comments to a website.In the Nova Scotia case, the court granted the order; in Ontario, the court refused it.The Ontario decision made it clear that such orders are not automatic – the court must be satisfied that there is a prima facie case for defamation, and must also weigh the public interest in disclosure against the freedom of expression and privacy interests of the parties. These issues were not addressed in the Nova Scotia decision.

Continue Reading...

Personal Information Protection Act amendments proclaimed in Alberta

Barbara B. Johnston, Gary T. Clarke, Birch K. Miller and April Kosten

Effective May 1, 2010, amendments to Alberta's Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) are in force, which provide new and notable requirements applicable to organizations.

Notification respecting service providers outside of Canada

Organizations that use service providers outside of Canada to collect personal information about individuals or that transfer personal information to service providers outside of Canada must notify individuals of:

  • the ways in which they may obtain access to written information about the organization's policies and practices with respect to service providers outside of Canada; and
  • the person who is able to answer questions on behalf of the organization about the collection, use, disclosure or storage of personal information by service providers outside Canada.

Such notification must be provided before personal information is collected by, or transferred to, the service provider.

Continue Reading...