Publication
La Cour suprême du Canada tranche : les cadres ne pourront se syndiquer au Québec
Le 19 avril dernier, la Cour suprême du Canada a rendu une décision fort attendue en matière de syndicalisation des cadres.
Publication | December 2016
Case: Valeant Canada LP v Apotex Inc, 2016 FC 1359 (Court File No. T-953-16)
Drug: GLUMETZA® (metformin)
Nature of case: Motion to dismiss prohibition application pursuant to section 6(5)(b) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (Regulations)
Successful party: Apotex Inc
Date of decision: December 8, 2016
Apotex successfully brought a motion to strike Valeant’s application under section 6(5)(b) of the Regulations on the grounds that the application is an abuse of process or is otherwise scandalous and vexatious. In response, Valeant did not file any evidence and argued that it has no burden to prove anything on the motion as it has a right to a hearing on the merits. The court held that Valeant had no arguable case, and therefore Valeant’s application is bereft of any chance of success and must be struck.
Valeant markets metformin tablets under the name GLUMETZA® for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Apotex sought approval to market its generic 1000 mg metformin tablets and was required to address Valeant’s patent. The patent relates to a pharmaceutical composition with a controlled-released coating prepared by a specific process.
In support of its motion to strike, Apotex filed an affidavit from an expert who reviewed Valeant’s patent and details of Apotex’s formulation as described in its regulatory submission. The expert opined that Apotex’s tablets will not infringe Valeant’s patent, as the tablets will not contain or be made according to the claims of the patent and will not comprise a coating or a pharmaceutical dosage that operates in the same manner as the dosage forms and coatings of the patent.
In what the court described as a "calculated strategic decision," Valeant did not file any evidence in this motion nor in the application. The court also noted that Valeant’s notice of application simply alleged that Apotex’s allegations of non-infringement were not justified and did not provide the grounds upon which it claims a prohibition order.
As the premise of the Regulations is to prevent infringement, Apotex argued that, in the absence of any evidence of infringement, Valeant’s application is an abuse of process.
Valeant contended that it has a right to a hearing on the merits, but no burden to prove anything or obligation to respond to Apotex’s case on the motion to strike. Valeant also argued Apotex has the burden of demonstrating there is no possible witness anywhere that might support Valeant’s case and that by bringing such a motion Apotex will obtain two opportunities to make its case.
Prothonotary Aalto rejected Valeant’s arguments and held that it is not sufficient for a party to commence an application without any grounds set out in the application to support its case. Further, the burden on this motion requires Apotex to demonstrate that Valeant’s application is bereft of any chance of success, which it has done by demonstrating that its tablets do not infringe the patent. Prothonotary Aalto therefore held that Valeant failed to demonstrate that its application was not bereft of any chance of success.
The court acknowledged Valeant is entitled to a hearing on the merits provided that the application as a whole is not bereft of any chance of success. The right to a hearing is a qualified right that cannot be given when there is no merit to the application. In this case, the court concluded that as there was no arguable case on the merits of Valeant’s application, the application is bereft of any chance of success and must be struck.
Valeant Canada LP v Apotex Inc, 2016 FC 1359
Publication
Le 19 avril dernier, la Cour suprême du Canada a rendu une décision fort attendue en matière de syndicalisation des cadres.
Publication
Le budget 2024 propose d’élargir la portée de certains pouvoirs permettant à l’ARC de demander des renseignements aux contribuables tout en prévoyant de nouvelles conséquences pour les contribuables contrevenants.
Publication
L'impôt minimum de remplacement (IMR) est un impôt sur le revenu additionnel prévu dans la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu (Canada) (la « Loi ») auquel sont assujettis les particuliers et certaines fiducies qui pourraient autrement avoir recours à certaines déductions et exemptions et à certains crédits pour réduire leur impôt sur le revenu fédéral canadien régulier.
Abonnez-vous et restez à l’affût des nouvelles juridiques, informations et événements les plus récents...
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023