PRACTICE
Appeals and New Trials
Motion to strike portions of reply, sur‑reply affidavits filed pursuant to order granting leave to file “proper” reply, sur‑reply evidence—Benefits of submitting drafts of proposed affidavits—Exact statements, paragraphs of reply to which purporting to reply should be clearly, precisely identified— Distinction between motion to strike evidence filed pursuant to Federal Courts Rules, rr. 306, 307 and motion to strike affidavit filed pursuant to discretionary order on grounds not complying with order—Principles governing admissibility of reply evidence—Effect of Abbott Laboratories v. Canada (Minister of Health) (2003 FC 1512) on Halford v. Seed Hawk Inc. (2003 FCT 141)—Criteria for responsiveness—Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98‑106, rr. 1 (as am. by SOR/2004‑283, s. 2), 306, 307.
Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc. (T‑156‑05, T‑787‑05, 2006 FC 953, Tabib P., order dated 4/8/06, 23 pp.)