Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc.

Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc.

Although Apotex had prior notice of the scope of Pfizer's evidence and had consented to a 45 day response period, justice required permitting a limited extension because denying any opportunity to file responding evidence would be unduly draconian; the Court balanced the risk of prejudice to Pfizer against Apotex's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2005 FC 545
Parties
Applicant: Pfizer Canada Inc.; Applicant: Pfizer Inc.; Respondent: Apotex Inc.; Respondent: The Minister of Health
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Prohibition Application Under the Patented Medicines (notice of Compliance) Regulations / Motion for Extension of Time / Case Management
Outcome
Motion granted in part: Apotex granted a limited extension to serve and file affidavits and exhibits; conditions imposed to mitigate prejudice to Pfizer
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Procedural Timetable, Pm(noc) Regulations, Statutory Stay, Expert Evidence, Costs
Source Language
english
Intellectual Property Administrative Law Civil Procedure Evidence Extension of Time Procedural Timetable Pm(noc) Regulations Statutory Stay +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pfizer Canada Inc.

Applicant

Pfizer Inc.

Applicant

Apotex Inc.

Respondent

The Minister of Health

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Prohibition Application Under the Patented Medicines (notice of Compliance) Regulations / Motion for Extension of Time / Case Management

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant Apotex an extension of time to serve and file affidavits and exhibits under Rule 307
  2. 2 Whether Apotex established a reasonable explanation for delay
  3. 3 Whether Pfizer would be prejudiced by the extension and whether prejudice can be mitigated

Ratio Decidendi

Although Apotex had prior notice of the scope of Pfizer's evidence and had consented to a 45 day response period, justice required permitting a limited extension because denying any opportunity to file responding evidence would be unduly draconian; the Court balanced the risk of prejudice to Pfizer against Apotex's need to respond and mitigated prejudice by extending the statutory stay and barring loss claims for the extension period and awarding costs against Apotex; on that basis the motion was granted in part and Apotex was given until May 31, 2005 to serve and file affidavits and exhibits.

Court Disposition

Motion granted in part: Apotex granted a limited extension to serve and file affidavits and exhibits; conditions imposed to mitigate prejudice to Pfizer

Orders

  • Apotex Inc. granted extension to May 31, 2005 to serve and file affidavits and documentary exhibits pursuant to Rule 307 of the Federal Courts Rules
  • The 24 month statutory stay under s.7(1)(e) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations is extended under s.7(5)(b) by 46 days (the period of Apotex's extension)