Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc. v. Canada (Health)

Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc. v. Canada (Health)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2009-05-26
Neutral citation
2009 FCA 169
File numbers
A-470-08
Decision Content
Federal Court of Appeal
CANADA
Cour d'appel fédérale
Date: 20090526
Docket: A-470-08
Citation: 2009 FCA 169
CORAM: LINDEN J.A.
EVANS J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
SANOFI-AVENTIS CANADA INC.
Appellant
and
THE MINISTER OF HEALTH,
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
and LABORATOIRE RIVA INC.
Respondents
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 26, 2009.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 26, 2009.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SHARLOW J.A.
Federal Court of Appeal
CANADA
Cour d'appel fédérale
Date: 20090526
Docket: A-470-08
Citation: 2009 FCA 169
CORAM: LINDEN J.A.
EVANS J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
SANOFI-AVENTIS CANADA INC.
Appellant
and
THE MINISTER OF HEALTH,
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
and LABORATOIRE RIVA INC.
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 26, 2009)
SHARLOW J.A.
[1] This is an appeal of the judgment of Justice Hughes dismissing with costs the application of Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc. for an order quashing the decision of the Minister of Health to issue a notice of compliance (NOC) to the respondent Laboratoire Riva Inc. for a generic version of 2.5, 5 and 10 mg ramipril capsules (2008 FC 1062).
[2] Despite the able submissions of Mr. Gaikis, we have not been persuaded that Justice Hughes erred in law in deciding as he did. We agree with his decision, substantially for the reasons he gave.
[3] Essentially, the argument for Sanofi is based on the premise that the abbreviated new drug submission (ANDS) originally filed by Pharmascience is so linked to the later prohibition order against Pharmascience that the order necessarily bars an independent generic drug producer, in this case Riva, from relying on the Pharmascience ANDS by using the technique of the “cross-reference” submission. We do not accept this argument.
[4] Nor do we accept the submission of Sanofi that Riva has circumvented the PM (NOC) Regulations. Riva’s submission for a NOC, even though it was by way of cross-reference, was a submission of sufficient substance to engage the PM (NOC) Regulations, so that Riva was required independently to serve Sanofi with a notice of allegation addressing the listed patents. It did so, and successfully defended the resulting prohibition application commenced by Sanofi.
[5] This appeal will be dismissed with costs.
“K. Sharlow”
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-470-08
STYLE OF CAUSE: Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc. v. The Minister of Health et al
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: May 26, 2009
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: (LINDEN, EVANS, SHARLOW J.J.A.)
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: SHARLOW J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Gunars A. Gaikis
Y. Lynn Ing
FOR THE APPELLANT
Arthur B. Renaud
Rick Woyiwada
FOR THE RESPONDENT
Laboratoire Riva Inc.
FOR THE RESPONDENT
Minister of Health
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Smart & Biggar
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE APPELLANT
Bennett Jones LLP
Toronto, Ontario
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE RESPONDENT
Laboratoire Riva Inc.
FOR THE RESPONDENT
Minister of Health