Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Health)

Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Health)

The judicial review was dismissed because the Court found the reconsideration process met standards of procedural fairness (no reasonable apprehension of bias; adequate opportunity to be heard; internal panel permitted under Guidelines) and the Panel’s conclusion that Apotex’s evidence regarding high levels of SLS was insufficient was reasonable and within the Panel’s expertise; an extension of time to file was granted but did not alter the outcome.

Citation
2017 FC 127
Parties
Applicant: Apotex Inc; Respondents: Minister of Health and Attorney General of Canada
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
application for judicial review dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Reconsideration, Notice of Non Compliance/withdrawal, Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (sls), Expert Panel Review, Timeliness
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Regulatory Law Health Law Pharmaceutical Regulation Procedural Fairness Reconsideration Notice of Non Compliance/withdrawal Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (sls) +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Apotex Inc

Applicant

Minister of Health and Attorney General of Canada

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 timeliness of the judicial review application
  2. 2 procedural fairness of the reconsideration panel process
  3. 3 reasonable apprehension of bias arising from draft notes

Ratio Decidendi

The judicial review was dismissed because the Court found the reconsideration process met standards of procedural fairness (no reasonable apprehension of bias; adequate opportunity to be heard; internal panel permitted under Guidelines) and the Panel’s conclusion that Apotex’s evidence regarding high levels of SLS was insufficient was reasonable and within the Panel’s expertise; an extension of time to file was granted but did not alter the outcome.

Court Disposition

application for judicial review dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed with costs