Fournier Pharma Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health)

Fournier Pharma Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health)

The Prothonotary did not commit a reviewable error in dismissing the appellants' s.6(7) motion; he considered the relevant factors, and the appellants' delay—found to be undue—was a factual determination to which the appellate court will not intervene.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2004 FCA 216
Parties
Appellant: FOURNIER PHARMA INC.; Appellant: LABORATOIRES FOURNIER S.A.; Respondent: THE MINISTER OF HEALTH; Respondent: APOTEX INC.
Court
Federal Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Patented Medicines (notice of Compliance) Regulations / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Discovery, Document Production, Case Management Discretion, Delay, S.6(7) NOC Regulations
Source Language
en
Patent Law Administrative Law Procedural Law Health Regulation Discovery Document Production Case Management Discretion Delay +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FOURNIER PHARMA INC.

Appellant

LABORATOIRES FOURNIER S.A.

Appellant

THE MINISTER OF HEALTH

Respondent

APOTEX INC.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Patented Medicines (notice of Compliance) Regulations / Appeal Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Prothonotary erred in exercising discretion to dismiss the motion for further document production under s.6(7) of the NOC Regulations
  2. 2 Whether the Prothonotary failed to consider factors other than delay, specifically the relevance and importance of the documents sought
  3. 3 Whether the Prothonotary attached undue weight to the appellants' delay and ignored relevance

Ratio Decidendi

The Prothonotary did not commit a reviewable error in dismissing the appellants' s.6(7) motion; he considered the relevant factors, and the appellants' delay—found to be undue—was a factual determination to which the appellate court will not intervene.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs