Eli Lilly and Co. v. Apotex Inc.
Court headnote
Eli Lilly and Co. v. Apotex Inc. Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2003-11-07 Neutral citation 2003 FC 1315 File numbers T-1321-97 Decision Content Date: 20031107 Docket: T-1321-97 Citation: 2003 FC 1315 BETWEEN: ELI LILLY AND COMPANY and ELI LILLY CANADA INC. Plaintiffs - and - APOTEX INC. Defendant AND BETWEEN: APOTEX INC. Plaintiff by Counterclaim (Defendant) - and - ELI LILLY AND COMPANY and ELI LILLY CANADA INC. Defendants by Counterclaim (Plaintiffs) - and - SHIONOGI & CO. LTD. Defendant by Counterclaim REASONS FOR ORDER PINARD J.: [1] This is an appeal by the plaintiffs of a discretionary decision not to allow an amendment to their Statement of Claim, a comprehensive decision which was made by Madam Prothonotary Aronovitch in the exercise of her powers as the Case Management Prothonotary assigned to these proceedings. [2] Upon hearing counsel for the parties and upon reading the material filed, I am not prepared to conduct a de novo review of the merits of the impugned decision and to consider exercising my own discretion differently for the following reasons: 1. the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the Prothonotary's decision is "clearly wrong", in that it was based upon an incorrect principle of law or misapprehension of the facts, or that the question raised is vital to the "final issue" in the case (see Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425 at 454 (C.A.)); furthermore, 2. the plaintiffs have manifestly failed to meet the hea…
Read full judgment
Eli Lilly and Co. v. Apotex Inc. Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2003-11-07 Neutral citation 2003 FC 1315 File numbers T-1321-97 Decision Content Date: 20031107 Docket: T-1321-97 Citation: 2003 FC 1315 BETWEEN: ELI LILLY AND COMPANY and ELI LILLY CANADA INC. Plaintiffs - and - APOTEX INC. Defendant AND BETWEEN: APOTEX INC. Plaintiff by Counterclaim (Defendant) - and - ELI LILLY AND COMPANY and ELI LILLY CANADA INC. Defendants by Counterclaim (Plaintiffs) - and - SHIONOGI & CO. LTD. Defendant by Counterclaim REASONS FOR ORDER PINARD J.: [1] This is an appeal by the plaintiffs of a discretionary decision not to allow an amendment to their Statement of Claim, a comprehensive decision which was made by Madam Prothonotary Aronovitch in the exercise of her powers as the Case Management Prothonotary assigned to these proceedings. [2] Upon hearing counsel for the parties and upon reading the material filed, I am not prepared to conduct a de novo review of the merits of the impugned decision and to consider exercising my own discretion differently for the following reasons: 1. the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the Prothonotary's decision is "clearly wrong", in that it was based upon an incorrect principle of law or misapprehension of the facts, or that the question raised is vital to the "final issue" in the case (see Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425 at 454 (C.A.)); furthermore, 2. the plaintiffs have manifestly failed to meet the heavy burden of demonstrating that the Prothonotary's interlocutory decision represents the "clearest case of a misuse of judicial discretion" (see Sawridge Band v. Canada, [2002] 2 F.C. 346 at 354 (C.A.)). [3] Consequently, the appeal is dismissed, with costs. JUDGE OTTAWA, ONTARIO November 7, 2003 FEDERAL COURT NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-1321-97 STYLE OF CAUSE: ELI LILLY AND COMPANY et al. v. APOTEX INC. et al. PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: November 4, 2003 REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PINARD DATED: November 7, 2003 APPEARANCES: Mr. Patrick Smith FOR THE PLAINTIFFS Mr. David Scrimger FOR THE DEFENDANT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP FOR THE PLAINTIFFS Ottawa, Ontario Goodmans FOR THE DEFENDANT Toronto, Ontario
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca