Date: 19991014
Docket: A-469-99
CORAM:
| DÉCARY J.A. |
ROBERTSON J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
BETWEEN:
| PFIZER INC. AND PFIZER CANADA INC. |
Appellants
(Plaitiffs)
- and -
| HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, THE MINISTER OF HEALTH and APTOEX INC. |
Respondents
(Defendants)
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, Thursday, October 14, 1999.
Judgment delivered from the bench at Ottawa, Ontario, Thursday, October 14, 1999.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SEXTON J.A.
Date: 19991014
Docket: A-469-99
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
ROBERTSON J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
BETWEEN:
| PFIZER INC. AND PFIZER CANADA INC. |
Appellants
(Plaintiffs)
- and -
| HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, THE MINISTER OF HEALTH and APOTEX INC. |
Respondents
(Defendants)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario
on Thursday, October 14, 1999)
SEXTON J.A.
[1] We agree with the learned Motions Judge that it is plain and obvious that the appellant cannot succeed. Neither the World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act (the WTO Act) nor the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS Agreement) purport to extend the period of protection for patents issued prior to the coming into force of the Statute.
[2] In order for the appellant to succeed on this appeal, this Court must be prepared to accept what are at best tenuous arguments relating to statutory interpretation. For example, the appellant argues that section 45 of the Patent Act was not amended under and pursuant to the WTO Act because of oversight on the part of Parliament. In our respectful view this argument lacks merit. The Motions Judge rejected this and other tangential arguments and in so doing he did not err in striking the appellant's amended statement of claim under paragraph 221(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules.
[3] In light of this conclusion, it is unnecessary for us to express any view as to the validity of the statutory bars contained in sections 5 and 6 of the WTO Act. The appeal will be dismissed with costs.
"J. Edgar Sexton"
J.A.