Smithkline Beecham Corporation v. Pierre Fabre Médicament

Smithkline Beecham Corporation v. Pierre Fabre Médicament
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2004-12-30
Neutral citation
2004 FCA 441
File numbers
04-A-40
Decision Content
Date: 20041230
Docket: 04-A-40
Citation: 2004 FCA 441
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PELLETIER
BETWEEN:
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION
Appellant
and
PIERRE FABRE MÉDICAMENT
Respondent
"Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties."
Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on December 29, 2004.
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PELLETIER J.A.
Date: 20041230
Docket: 04-A-40
Citation: 2004 FCA 441
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PELLETIER
BETWEEN:
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION
Appellant
and
PIERRE FABRE MÉDICAMENT
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PELLETIER J.A.
[1] Each month for the past four months (September to December 2004), Smithkline Beecham has filed a motion, on consent, for a 30 day extension of time for filing a Notice of Appeal from a decision rendered on June 4, 2004. Three of the four motions have been granted. The fourth is before the Court.
[2] In each case, the reason given for the request for an extension of time is:
The parties are currently discussing settlement of these proceedings, as well as a number of related proceedings.
[3] One is left to conclude that the negotiations are ongoing but that, for some reason, the parties wish to maintain a sense of urgency by requesting short 30 day extensions of time.
[4] While this may suit the parties, it requires them to make repetitive motions, which the Registry must process and which a judge of this Court must then consider. This is wasteful of the litigants' and the Court's resources. The Court understands the parties' desire to avoid the costs involved in launching an appeal, but it is not inclined to simply keep rubber stamping repeated requests for extensions of time. If the parties are actively working at settling all outstanding issues between them, the Court is prepared to extend the time for filing a Notice of Appeal to a date which will give the parties the time to conclude their efforts. If, on the other hand, these matters are being left to be dealt with as they arise, then perhaps the necessity of proceeding with an appeal will bring them to a head.
[5] The Court is prepared to defer to the parties process for resolving their differences but it must know something about that process. Accordingly, the Court will suspend consideration of this request for an extension of time so as to allow the parties to file a timetable for the conclusion of negotiations. That timetable should contain a list of the steps to be completed to conclude negotiations and the dates by which such steps are to be completed. If the steps consist simply of meetings of the parties, the dates of the meetings are to be provided.
[6] With this information in hand, the Court will provide an extension of time for filing a Notice of Appeal which will provide the parties the time to complete their negotiations without the necessity of filing monthly motions. However, the extension of time will be peremptory in the sense that there will be no further extensions, absent exceptional circumstances. This should assist the parties in maintaining a sense of urgency.
[7] The Court will therefore suspend consideration of the motion for an extension of time for filing a Notice of Appeal until January 10, 2005, so as to allow the parties to file their timetable for concluding settlement negotiations.
ORDER
The hearing of this motion is adjourned to January 10, 2005, so as to allow the parties to file their timetable for concluding settlement negotiations.
"J.D. Denis Pelletier"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: 04-A-40
STYLE OF CAUSE:
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION
and
PIERRE FABRE MÉDICAMENT
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PELLETIER
DATED: December 30, 2004
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Mr. Robert A. MacDonald
FOR THE APPELLANT/
APPLICANT
Ms Julie Desrosiers
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Gowling Lafleur Henderson
Ottawa, Ontario
FOR THE APPELLANT/
APPLICANT
Fasken Martineau DuMoulin
Montréal (Québec)
FOR THE RESPONDENT