Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

                                                                                                                                  Date: 20030207

                                                                                                                               Docket: T-122-02

Neutral Citation: 2003 FCT 134

Montréal, Quebec, February 7, 2003

Present:           Mr. Richard Morneau, Prothonotary

BETWEEN:

H. LUNDBECK A/S

and

LUNDBECK CANADA INC.

Applicants

and

THE MINISTER OF HEALTH

and

GENPHARM INC.

Respondents

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

[1]         This is a motion by the applicants (hereinafter Lundbeck) in the context of litigation under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, for a decision in their favour on objections raised during the cross-examination of three affiants submitted by the respondent Genpharm. A difficulty raised during the cross-examination on affidavit of one of the Lundbeck affiants is also to be resolved.


Regarding Dr. Pike

[2]         The two objections raised by Genpharm during the cross-examination of Dr. Pike shall be upheld, for the reasons presented by Genpharm in paragraphs 23 and 24 of its written representations submitted in opposition to the motion at bar.

Regarding Dr. Merskey and Dr. Rathbone

[3]         In regard to the three documents that Lundbeck attempted to introduce via the cross-examination of Dr. Merskey and Dr. Rathbone, I think the reasoning developed by Genpharm in support of its objections is the path to follow, and, more particularly, the comments that Genpharm presents in paragraph 29 of its written representations.

[4]         Genpharm's objections in regard to these two witnesses will therefore also be upheld.

Regarding Dr. Rabheru

[5]         Here as well, the reasons presented by Genpharm in paragraphs 37 and 38 of its written representations are those that should guide us. Genpharm's objection is therefore upheld.

[6]         For these reasons, Lundbeck's motion is therefore dismissed with costs.

[7]         As to the schedule to which the parties should adhere for the continuation of this matter, it would be the following:


1.          The applicants shall serve and file their record on or before February 27, 2003;

2.          The respondents shall serve and file their record on or before March 19, 2003;

3.          The applicants shall serve and file their requisition for hearing under Rule 314 within ten (10) days of receiving service of the respondents' record.

"Richard Morneau"

Prothonotary

Certified true translation

Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.


FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

TRIAL DIVISION

Date: 20030207

                                                       Docket: T-122-02

Between:

H. LUNDBECK A/S and LUNDBECK CANADA INC.

Applicants

and

THE MINISTER OF HEALTH and GENPHARM INC.

Respondents

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER


FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

TRIAL DIVISION

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET NO:                        T-122-02

STYLE:                                    H. LUNDBECK A/S and LUNDBECK CANADA INC.

and

THE MINISTER OF HEALTH and GENPHARM INC.

PLACE OF HEARING:         Montréal, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING:            January 29, 2003

REASONS FOR ORDER OF MR. RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY

DATED:                                 February 7, 2003

APPEARANCES:

Karine Joizil                                                                   for the applicants

Kamleh J. Nicola                                                           for the respondent Genpharm Inc.

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin                                          for the applicants

Montréal, Quebec

Sim Hughes Ashton & McKay                           for the respondent Genpharm Inc.

Toronto, Ontario

Morris Rosenberg                                                          for the respondent The Minister of Health

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.