Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20020123

Docket: A-44-01

Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 32

CORAM:        RICHARD C.J.

STRAYER J.A.

NOËL J.A.

BETWEEN:

                                           BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB CANADA INC.

                                                                                                                                                       Appellant

                                                                                                                                                     (Applicant)

                                                                                 and

                                                ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,

                                     THE MINISTER OF HEALTH and APOTEX INC.

                                                                                                                                               Respondents

                                                                                                                                              (Respondents)

                                             Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 23, 2002.

                     Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 23, 2002.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:                                                   RICHARD C.J.


Date: 20020123

Docket: A-44-01

Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 32

CORAM:        RICHARD C.J.

STRAYER J.A.

NOËL J.A.

BETWEEN:

                                           BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB CANADA INC.

                                                                                                                                                       Appellant

                                                                                                                                                     (Applicant)

                                                                                 and

                                                ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,

                                     THE MINISTER OF HEALTH and APOTEX INC.

                                                                                                                                               Respondents

                                                                                                                                              (Respondents)

                                       REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

                                           (Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario

                                                                on January 23, 2002.)

RICHARD C.J.

[1]                 The sole issue raised in this appeal is whether the Trial Division, reported at [2001] F.C.J. no. 51, erred in refusing to set aside the Minister's decision that the patent at issue was ineligible for inclusion on the Register maintained under section 3 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133 (March 12, 1993), as amended by SOR/98-166 (March 12, 1998) and by SOR/99-379 (October 1, 1999), (the Regulations).


[2]                 In our view, the application Judge did not err in upholding the Minister's decision.

[3]                 The appellant relied on the decision of Madam Justice McGillis in Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health), (1999), 87 C.P.R. (3d) 271 (F.C.T.D.), as affirmed by the Court of Appeal, (2001), 11 C.P.R. (4th) 538 (F.C.A.).

[4]                 In our view, that decision is distinguishable because it was decided prior to the introduction of subsection 4(6) of the Regulations and involved a supplement to a new drug submission based on a new indication or use.

[5]                 In affirming the decision of McGillis J., the Court of Appeal expressly declined to deal with the issue of whether the filing of a second patent list with regard to the same drug was appropriate.

[6]                 Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed with costs to both respondents.

                   "J. Richard"                      

     Chief Justice


                                                    FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

                              NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                             A-44-01

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          

                                             BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB CANADA INC.

and

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,

THE MINISTER OF HEALTH and APOTEX INC.

PLACE OF HEARING:                     OTTAWA, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:                       JANUARY 23, 2002

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT : RICHARD C.J.

DATED:                                                JANUARY 23, 2002

APPEARANCES:

Mr. Anthony Creber                                                                       FOR THE APPELLANT

Mr. Martin Mason

Mr. Frederick Woyiwada                                                              FOR THE RESPONDENT

(ATTORNEY GENERAL OF                          CANADA, THE MINISTER OF HEALTH)

Mr. Harry Radomski                                                                      FOR THE RESPONDENT

Mr. Andrew Brodkin                                                                      (APOTEX INC.)


SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Gowlings                                                                                         FOR THE APPELLANT

Ottawa, Ontario                                                                            

Morris Rosenberg                                                                           FOR THE RESPONDENT

Deputy Attorney General of Canada     (ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

Ottawa, Ontario                                                                             CANADA, THE MINISTER OF HEALTH)

Goodmans                                                                                      FOR THE RESPONDENT

Toronto, Ontario                                                                            (APOTEX INC.)

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.