Skip to main content
Federal Court of Appeal· 2008

Bayer Healthcare AG v. Sandoz Canada Inc.

2008 FCA 309
CorporateJD
Cite or share
Share via WhatsAppEmail
Showing the official court-reporter headnote. An editorial brief (facts · issues · held · ratio · significance) is on the roadmap for this case. The judgment text below is the authoritative source.

Court headnote

Bayer Healthcare AG v. Sandoz Canada Inc. Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2008-10-15 Neutral citation 2008 FCA 309 File numbers A-488-07 Decision Content Date: 20081015 Docket: A-488-07 Citation: 2008 FCA 309 CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. SHARLOW J.A. PELLETIER J.A. BETWEEN: BAYER HEALTHCARE AG and BAYER INC. Appellants (Plaintiffs/Defendants by Counterclaim) and SANDOZ CANADA INCORPORATED Respondent (Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim) Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on October 15, 2008. Judgment delivered at Toronto, Ontario, on October 15, 2008. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SHARLOW J.A. Date: 20081015 Docket: A-488-07 Citation: 2008 FCA 309 CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. SHARLOW J.A. PELLETIER J.A. BETWEEN: BAYER HEALTHCARE AG and BAYER INC. Appellants (Plaintiffs/Defendants by Counterclaim) and SANDOZ CANADA INCORPORATED Respondent (Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim) REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on October 15, 2008) SHARLOW J.A. [1] Bayer appeals the order of Justice Barnes (2007 FC 1068) dismissing its motion to strike paragraphs 46 to 56 of the Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim. We note that in certain respects Justice Barnes’ reasons may disclose some misunderstanding of the pleadings. However, despite the able submissions of counsel for Bayer, we are not persuaded that it is plain and obvious that the pleadings must fail. Therefore, the appeal will be dismissed with costs in the cause. “…

Read full judgment
Bayer Healthcare AG v. Sandoz Canada Inc.
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2008-10-15
Neutral citation
2008 FCA 309
File numbers
A-488-07
Decision Content
Date: 20081015
Docket: A-488-07
Citation: 2008 FCA 309
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
BAYER HEALTHCARE AG and
BAYER INC.
Appellants
(Plaintiffs/Defendants
by Counterclaim)
and
SANDOZ CANADA INCORPORATED
Respondent
(Defendant/Plaintiff
by Counterclaim)
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on October 15, 2008.
Judgment delivered at Toronto, Ontario, on October 15, 2008.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SHARLOW J.A.
Date: 20081015
Docket: A-488-07
Citation: 2008 FCA 309
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
BAYER HEALTHCARE AG and
BAYER INC.
Appellants
(Plaintiffs/Defendants
by Counterclaim)
and
SANDOZ CANADA INCORPORATED
Respondent
(Defendant/Plaintiff
by Counterclaim)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on October 15, 2008)
SHARLOW J.A.
[1] Bayer appeals the order of Justice Barnes (2007 FC 1068) dismissing its motion to strike paragraphs 46 to 56 of the Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim. We note that in certain respects Justice Barnes’ reasons may disclose some misunderstanding of the pleadings. However, despite the able submissions of counsel for Bayer, we are not persuaded that it is plain and obvious that the pleadings must fail. Therefore, the appeal will be dismissed with costs in the cause.
“K. Sharlow”
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-488-07
APPEAL FROM THE REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COURT (BARNES, J.), DATED OCTOBER 17, 2007, DOCKET NO. T-762-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: BAYER HEALTHCARE AG and BAYER INC. v. SANDOZ CANADA INCORPORATED
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: OCTOBER 15, 2008
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF
THE COURT BY: (LÉTOURNEAU, SHARLOW & PELLETIER JJ.A.)
DELIVERED FROM THE
BENCH BY: SHARLOW J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Peter Choe
FOR THE APPELLANT
Warren Springings, Robert Shapiro, Paula Bremner
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
Toronto, ON
FOR THE APPELLANT
Hitchman and Springings
Barristers and Solicitors
Toronto, ON
FOR THE RESPONDENT

Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca

Related cases