Solvay Pharma Inc. v. Apotex Inc.

Solvay Pharma Inc. v. Apotex Inc.

Leave to file the proposed reply evidence was denied because the Health Canada letter is inadmissible hearsay and not an affidavit, the two research reports were available long before but were produced extremely late (creating prejudice and insufficient time for respondents’ experts to consider them), and permitting...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2007 FC 857
Parties
Applicant: Solvay Pharma Inc.; Applicant: Altana Pharma AG; Respondent: Apotex Inc.; Respondent: The Minister of Health
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Patented Medicines Regulations / Interlocutory Motion to File Reply Evidence Under Rule 312
Outcome
Motion to file reply evidence dismissed; costs awarded to the respondents.
Legal Topics
Reply Evidence, Rule 312, Notice of Compliance, Statutory Injunction, Extension of Time, Sound Prediction, Hearsay
Source Language
english
Administrative Law Patent Law Pharmaceutical Regulation Civil Procedure Reply Evidence Rule 312 Notice of Compliance Statutory Injunction +3 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Solvay Pharma Inc.

Applicant

Altana Pharma AG

Applicant

Apotex Inc.

Respondent

The Minister of Health

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under the Patented Medicines Regulations / Interlocutory Motion to File Reply Evidence Under Rule 312

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to file supplemental/reply affidavits under Rule 312
  2. 2 Whether a recent letter from Health Canada may be admitted as evidence
  3. 3 Whether two research reports located after original affidavit filing may be admitted despite availability earlier

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to file the proposed reply evidence was denied because the Health Canada letter is inadmissible hearsay and not an affidavit, the two research reports were available long before but were produced extremely late (creating prejudice and insufficient time for respondents’ experts to consider them), and permitting the material would undermine the summary, expeditious nature of Patented Medicines Regulations proceedings and risk unfair prejudice to Apotex prior to scheduled cross-examinations and hearing.

Court Disposition

Motion to file reply evidence dismissed; costs awarded to the respondents.

Orders

  • This motion to file reply evidence be dismissed.
  • Costs in favour of the respondents.