Docket: T-1599-13
Citation:
2015 FC 1167
Ottawa, Ontario, October 15, 2015
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Gleason
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
ELI LILLY
CANADA INC.
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
APOTEX INC. AND
THE MINISTER OF
HEALTH
|
|
Respondents
|
|
and
|
|
ICOS CORPORATION
|
|
Respondent Patentee
|
ORDER AND REASONS
[1]
In my Judgment of August 26, 2015 in this
matter, I dismissed the prohibition application of the applicant, Eli Lilly
Canada Inc. [Lilly], determined that costs would follow the event, remitted the
issue of the quantification of the costs of the respondent, Apotex Inc.
[Apotex] to the parties and retained jurisdiction to make a costs award in the
event that the parties were unable to agree on the quantum of costs. They have
been unable to so agree. Lilly suggests that Apotex’s costs should be fixed at
$20,275.39 or, in the alternative, that the Court provide directions with the
following guidance:
(a)
Costs are to be fixed at the mid-level of Column
IV of Tariff B;
(b)
Reasonable fees shall include an allowance for:
i.
two counsel at the hearing;
ii.
two counsel in conducting cross-examinations;
and
iii.
one counsel in defending cross-examinations;
(c)
Apotex’s costs incurred after February 23, 2015
or March 20, 2015 are to be eliminated or alternatively reduced by 25%;
(d)
Apotex’s costs are to be reduced by:
i.
25% for raising a number of allegations that
were not pursued at the hearing; and
ii.
33% for making unfounded and speculative
allegations that are akin to fraud; and
(e)
Apotex is entitled to only those disbursements
that are found to be payable, necessary for the conduct of the application and
reasonable.
[2]
Apotex submits that my costs award should mirror
that in Court File T-1598-13 and contests that its costs should be reduced for
any of the reasons advanced by Lilly.
[3]
I concur with Apotex and for the reasons set out
in my Order of October 15, 2015 in Court File T-1598-13 determine that the same
parameters should apply to the calculation of costs in this file and
accordingly so award.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1.
Apotex is awarded costs in accordance with the
following directions, which neither derogate from nor confirm Apotex’s
entitlement to fees or disbursements not addressed by the following directions:
(a)
Costs are to be assessed at the mid-level of
Column IV of Tariff B;
(b)
Counsel fees shall be assessed on the basis of:
i.
one senior and one junior counsel at the
hearing;
ii.
one senior and one junior counsel in conducting
cross-examinations; and
iii.
one senior counsel for defending cross-examinations;
(c)
No costs are recoverable for the fees of others,
including in-house counsel, articling students or support staff;
(d)
Apotex is capped at one instance of item 2 of Tariff
B;
(e)
Apotex is capped at one instance of item 24 of
Tariff B per trip taken by its counsel to conduct cross-examinations to meet
with witnesses;
(f)
Apotex may claim an amount under item 27 of
Tariff B for preparation of the Bill of Costs if it prepares one;
(g)
Subject to the disbursements being reasonable
and necessary in the circumstances, Apotex’s disbursements for expert fees
shall be capped at the amount charged by senior counsel for similar time
involvement;
(h)
Apotex may recover the lesser of $0.25 per page or
the amount actually billed to it for in-house photocopying for all pages
produced as part of the materials served and filed, with the exception of the
first 1500 pages;
(i)
The amounts that Apotex may recover as
disbursements for airfare for counsel for Apotex for all flights of five hours
duration or less are capped at the cost of an economy class ticket, and for
flights of a longer duration at the cost of a business class ticket;
(j)
The amounts that Apotex may recover as
disbursements for accommodations for counsel for Apotex are capped at the cost
of single hotel rooms; and
(k)
Apotex may recover for any translation
undertaken for purposes of communicating with a witness.
2.
In the event the parties are unable to agree on
the amounts payable pursuant to the terms of this Order, the matter may be
referred to an Assessment Officer.
"Mary J.L. Gleason"
FEDERAL
COURT
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD
|
DOCKET:
|
T-1599-13
|
|
STYLE OF CAUSE:
|
ELI LILLY CANADA INC. v APOTEX INC. AND
THE MINISTER OF HEALTH AND ICOS CORPORATION
|
|
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS CONSIDERED
AT:
|
Ottawa, Ontario
|
|
ORDER
AND reasons:
|
GLEASON J.
|
|
DATED:
|
october 15, 2015
|
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
|
Adrian Howard
|
For
The Applicant
and
respondent patentee
|
|
Harry B. Radomski
Jordan Scopa
|
For
The Respondent
APOTEX
INC.
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Barrister and Solicitor
Ottawa, Ontario
|
For
The Applicant
and
respondent patentee
|
|
Goodmans LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
Toronto, Ontario
|
For
The Respondent
apotex
inc.
|
|
William F. Pentney
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario
|
For
The RESPONDENT
the
MINISTER OF HEALTH
|