What is inherency in Canadian patent law?

As far as inherency is concerned, I am not aware of such a concept in Canadian patent law. It seems to me to be merely another label for anticipation. Ratiopharm really argues that anyone following the prior art would have produced Form 0. However, in order for such prior art to be anticipatory, it must meet the test in Beloit Canada v. Valmet (1986) 8 CPR (3d) 289 where Hugessen J. stated: It will be recalled that anticipation, or lack of novelty, asserts that the invention has been made known to the public prior to the relevant time. The inquiry is directed to the very invention in suit and not, as in the case of obviousness, to the state of the art and to common general knowledge. Also, as appears from the passage of the statute quoted above, anticipation must be found in a specific patent or other published document; it is not enough to pick bits and pieces from a variety of prior publications and to meld them together so as to come up with the claimed invention. One must, in effect, be able to look at a prior, single publication and find in it all the information which, for practical purposes, is needed to produce the claimed invention without the exercise of any inventive skill. The prior publication must contain so clear a direction that a skilled person reading and following it would in every case and without possibility of error be led to the claimed invention.(Underlining added)