Apotex Inc. v. AB Hassle

Apotex Inc. v. AB Hassle
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2005-06-01
Neutral citation
2005 FCA 209
File numbers
A-124-05
Decision Content
Date: 20050601
Docket: A-124-05
Citation: 2005 FCA 209
Present: RICHARD C.J.
BETWEEN:
APOTEX INC.
Appellant
(Respondent)
and
AB HASSLE, ASTRAZENECA AB, and
ASTRAZENECA CANADA INC.
Respondents
(Applicants)
and
THE MINISTER OF HEALTH
Respondent
(Respondent)
Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties.
Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 1, 2005.
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: RICHARD C.J.
Date: 20050601
Docket: A-124-05
Citation: 2005 FCA 209
Present: RICHARD C.J.
BETWEEN:
APOTEX INC.
Appellant
(Respondent)
and
AB HASSLE, ASTRAZENECA AB, and
ASTRAZENECA CANADA INC.
Respondents
(Applicants)
and
THE MINISTER OF HEALTH
Respondent
(Respondent)
REASONS FOR ORDER
RICHARD C.J.
[1] The Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association (CGPA) seeks leave to intervene on an appeal by Apotex Inc. (the appellant) from a decision of a Federal Court judge granting an order prohibiting the Minister of Health from issuing a Notice of Compliance (NOC) to the appellant.
[2] The appellant has raised five grounds of appeal and the one on which CGPA wishes to intervene is the following:
(c) her Ladyship erred in fact and law in concluding that Apotex was precluded by reason of the principles of abuse of process, res judicata and/or issue estoppel from alleging non-infringement and invalidity of the '693 Patent;
[3] It is up to the proposed intervener to demonstrate how its participation in the proceeding will assist the determination of the factual or legal issue related to the proceeding.
[4] The assistance of an intervener cannot "merely be a reiteration of the position taken by a party, but rather must provide a different perspective. What is required is a 'relevant and useful point of view which the initial parties cannot or will not present' (Abott v. Canada, [2003] 3 F.C. 482)", Ferroequus Railway Co. v. Canadian National Railway Co., 2003 FCA 408, [2003] F.C.J. No. 1621 (QL).
[5] Although the membership of the CGPA, which includes the appellant, may be interested in the outcome of the appeal on this particular question, it has not satisfied me that, in the circumstances of this appeal, it has met the criteria for the grant of intervention set out in Canadian Union of Public Employees (Airline Division v. Canadian Airlines International Ltd.), [2000] F.C.J. No. 220 (C.A.) (QL) at paragraphs 8 and 9.
[6] In particular, I am satisfied that the Court can hear and determine the appeal on its merits without the submissions of the proposed intervener and that the position of the proposed intervener is adequately defended by the appellant.
[7] Accordingly, the motion for leave to intervene in this appeal will be dismissed.
"J. Richard"
Chief Justice
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-124-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: APOTEX INC. v. AB HASSLE, ASTRAZENECA AB, and ASTRAZENECA CANADA INC. and THE MINISTER OF HEALTH
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: RICHARD C.J.
DATED: June 1, 2005
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
H.B. Radomski
FOR THE APPELLANT
Gunars A. Gaikis
Brian P. Isaac
J. Sheldon Hamilton
FOR THE RESPONDENTS, AB HASSLE, ASTRAZENECA AB, and ASTRAZENECA CANADA INC.
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Goodmans
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE APPELLANT
Smart & Biggar
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENTS, AB HASSLE, ASTRAZENECA AB, and ASTRAZENECA CANADA INC.