Federal Court Upholds Settlement Privilege as it applies to Settlement Amounts
In Pharmascience Inc. v. Pfizer Canada ULC (2020 FC 1176), the Federal Court dismissed the plaintiff’s motion seeking disclosure of two unredacted settlement agreements. In doing so, the Court reviewed the doctrine of settlement privilege and reaffirmed the narrow circumstances in which production of settlement amounts may be ordered.
Background
This motion arose in the context of an action in which Pharmascience Inc. (“Pharmascience”) claimed damages for lost sales of its pregabalin medication due to a prohibition application commenced by Pfizer Canada ULC (“Pfizer”).
In the motion, Pharmascience sought an Order requiring Pfizer to produce unredacted copies of two settlement agreements between Pfizer and Teva. The redactions at issue concerned the amounts for which the parties agreed to settle. Pfizer asserted that the redacted amounts were subject to settlement privilege.
Federal Court’s Decision
In determining whether Pharmascience’s motion should be granted, the Federal Court highlighted the importance of encouraging settlement and noted that settlement amounts are privileged as they reflect the “admissions, offers, and compromises made in the course of negotiations”. However, an exception to settlement privilege exists when a “superordinate public interest” favours disclosure.
The Court found that Pharmascience failed to establish the settlement amounts fell within this narrow exception. Pharmascience did not require the redacted amounts for the proper disposition of the proceeding nor were the settlement amounts relevant or necessary to calculating damages or determining whether Pfizer acted in good faith.
The Court also found that Pharmascience’s alternative argument, that Pfizer had waived privilege over the redacted amounts by providing partial disclosure of the settlement agreements, was not supported by the evidence. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Pharmascience’s motion.
Authors: Meghan King and Maddie Warren
Photo Credit: https://unsplash.com/@tinaflour
Authors
Expertise
Insights
-
Intellectual Property Litigation
Trademarks Opposition Board Moves to Digital-Only Submission of Confidential Information
As of June 1, 2026, the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) requires all confidential evidence and documentation in proceedings under sections 11.13, 38, or 45 of the Trademarks Act (the “Act”) to be… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Pecking Order Problem: Pudgy Penguins Faces Penguin Trademark Lawsuit
As reported by Bloomberg Law News, PEI Licensing (“PEI”), the owner of the Penguin apparel brand, has sued Pudgy Penguins NFT (“Pudgy Penguins”) for trademark infringement.Pudgy Penguins started as a… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Old Brand, New Problems? Nike’s Attempt to Revive “Total 90” Soccer Cleats
Nike is reportedly attempting to revive its classic “Total 90” soccer cleat line, but has encountered an unexpected setback. Total90, LLC has reportedly asserted that Nike is infringing its… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Swing and a Miss: The “All Rise” Trademark Attempt
As reported by Bloomberg, attempts to register marks covering the phrases “All Rise” and “Here Comes the Judge” were rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Hershey’s Kisses Go to Court – Federal Court of Appeal Decision in PIM Brands Inc. v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC
The Federal Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Promotion in Motion, Inc. (PIM Brands, Inc.) v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC offers fresh guidance on how courts evaluate survey evidence… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
CIPO Explores Fast-Tracking Patents for Innovation in Priority Sectors
Industry Minister Mélanie Joly is reportedly evaluating a proposal from the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”) that would accelerate patent applications in artificial intelligence…