Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content




Date:20010129


Docket:A-222-99

CORAM:      STRAYER J.A.

         ROTHSTEIN J.A.

         MALONE J.A.

BETWEEN:


APOTEX INC.

Appellant

(Applicant)



- and -



MINISTER OF HEALTH and

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM PHARMA INC.


Respondents

(Respondents)





Heard at Toronto, Ontario, Monday, January 29, 2001


Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario,

on Monday, January 29, 2001


                                        

                                    

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT PRONOUNCED BY:

                                     ROTHSTEIN J.A.     


Date: 20010129


Docket: A-222-99


CORAM:      STRAYER J.A.

         ROTHSTEIN J.A.

         MALONE J.A.

BETWEEN:


APOTEX INC.

Appellant

(Applicant)




- and -



MINISTER OF HEALTH and

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM PHARMA INC.


Respondents

(Respondents)


    

     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto,

Ontario on Monday, January 29, 2001)


ROTHSTEIN J.A.

         _.      We have not been persuaded of any error in the reasons of McGillis J.
         _.      Before this Court counsel for Apotex made oral submissions that the filing of a second original patent list with regard to the same drug for which a prior original list had been filed was inappropriate. This issue was not raised in the judicial review before McGillis J. nor in the factums in this appeal. This issue is left for another day.
         _.      We would dismiss the appeal with costs to SmithKline Beecham Pharma Inc.

                                     "Marshall Rothstein"

J.A.

             FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

                            

DOCKET:                      A-222-99
STYLE OF CAUSE:                  APOTEX INC.

Appellant

     (Applicant)



- and -


                         MINISTER OF HEALTH and

                         SMITHKLINE BEECHAM PHARMA INC.

Respondents

     (Respondents)

DATE OF HEARING:              MONDAY, JANUARY 29, 2001

                

PLACE OF HEARING:              TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

OF THE COURT PRONOUNCED BY:      ROTHSTEIN J.A.         

Delivered at Toronto, Ontario on Monday, January 29, 2001


APPEARANCES:                  H. B. Radomski

                             For the Appellant (Applicant)

                                            

                         James Mills, and

                         Anthony G. Creber

                 For the Respondent, SmithKline
Beecham Pharma Inc.

                         F. B. Woyiwada

                             For the Respondent, The Minister of Health







SOLICITORS OF RECORD:          Goodman Phillips & Vineberg

                         Barristers & Solicitors

                         250 Yonge Street

                         Suite 2400

                         Toronto, Ontario

                         M5B 2M6

                             For the Appellants (Applicant)

                         Gowling Strathy & Henderson

                         Barristers & Solicitors

                         160 Elgin Street

                         Ottawa, Ontario

                         K1P 1C3

                             For the Respondent, SmithKline Beecham Pharma Inc.
                         Morris Rosenberg
                         Deputy Attorney General of Canada
                             For the Respondent, The Minister of Health

                         FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL


Date: 20010129


Docket: A-222-99

                        

                         BETWEEN:

                         APOTEX INC.

Appellant

(Applicant)




- and -




                         MINISTER OF HEALTH and

                         SMITHKLINE BEECHAM PHARMA INC.


Respondents

(Respondents)





                        

                        

                        

                         REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF

                         THE COURT

                        

                        

 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.