Skip to main content
Federal Court of Appeal· 2003

Glaxosmithkline Inc. v. Apotex Inc.

2003 FCA 209
GeneralJD
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

Glaxosmithkline Inc. v. Apotex Inc. Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2003-05-06 Neutral citation 2003 FCA 209 File numbers A-569-02 Decision Content Date: 20030506 Docket: A-569-02 Citation: 2003 FCA 209 CORAM: STONE J.A. SEXTON J.A. SHARLOW J.A. BETWEEN: GLAXOSMITHKLINE INC. Appellant (Respondent) and APOTEX INC. Respondent Applicant and THE MINISTER OF HEALTH Respondent (Respondent) Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 6, 2003. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 6, 2003. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: SEXTON J.A. Date: 20030506 Docket: A-569-02 Citation: 2003 FCA 209 CORAM: STONE J.A. SEXTON J.A. SHARLOW J.A. BETWEEN: GLAXOSMITHKLINE INC. Appellant (Respondent) and APOTEX INC. Respondent (Applicant) and THE MINISTER OF HEALTH Respondent (Respondent) REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, May 6, 2003) SEXTON J.A. [1] While we do not agree with the proposition advanced by the respondents that one co-respondent can never be allowed to cross-examine another co-respondent, pursuant to Rule 83 we are of the view, that in this case, the appellant has failed to show that there is any adverse interest as between the appellant and the Minister of Health so as to constitute the Minister of Health an adverse party in the proceeding. The appeal will be dismissed with costs to both respondents. "J. EDGAR SEXTON" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-569-02 APPEAL FROM AN ORDER …

Read full judgment
Glaxosmithkline Inc. v. Apotex Inc.
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2003-05-06
Neutral citation
2003 FCA 209
File numbers
A-569-02
Decision Content
Date: 20030506
Docket: A-569-02
Citation: 2003 FCA 209
CORAM: STONE J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
GLAXOSMITHKLINE INC.
Appellant
(Respondent)
and
APOTEX INC.
Respondent
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF HEALTH
Respondent
(Respondent)
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 6, 2003.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 6, 2003.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: SEXTON J.A.
Date: 20030506
Docket: A-569-02
Citation: 2003 FCA 209
CORAM: STONE J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
GLAXOSMITHKLINE INC.
Appellant
(Respondent)
and
APOTEX INC.
Respondent
(Applicant)
and
THE MINISTER OF HEALTH
Respondent
(Respondent)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, May 6, 2003)
SEXTON J.A.
[1] While we do not agree with the proposition advanced by the respondents that one co-respondent can never be allowed to cross-examine another co-respondent, pursuant to Rule 83 we are of the view, that in this case, the appellant has failed to show that there is any adverse interest as between the appellant and the Minister of Health so as to constitute the Minister of Health an adverse party in the proceeding. The appeal will be dismissed with costs to both respondents.
"J. EDGAR SEXTON"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-569-02
APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE TRIAL DIVISION DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002, TRIAL DIVISION FILE NO. T-2288-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: GLAXOSMITHKLINE INC. v. APOTEX INC. ET AL.
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: May 6, 2003
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT(Stone, Sexton, Sharlow JJ.A.)
RENDERED FROM THE BENCH BY: Sexton, J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Mr. James E. Mills
Mr. Julian Worsley for the Appellant
Ms. Julie Perrin for the Respondent, Apotex Inc.
Mr. F.B. (Rick) Woyiwada for the Respondent, The Minister of Health
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP for the Appellant
Ottawa, Ontario
Goodmans LLP for the Respondent, Apotex Inc.
Toronto, Ontario
Mr. Morris Rosenberg for the Respondent, The Minister of
Deputy Attorney General of Canada Health
Ottawa, Ontario

Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca

Related cases