Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 3 SCR 1100

Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1100

Merck & Co. Inc. and

Merck Frosst Canada Inc.                                                                Appellants

v.

Apotex Inc.                                                                                         Respondent

and

The Attorney General of Canada and the

Minister of National Health and Welfare                                        Respondents

Indexed as:  Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General)

File No.:  23905.

1994:  December 5; 1994:  December 15.

Present:  La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

on appeal from the federal court of appeal

                   Food and drugs ‑‑ Notice of compliance ‑‑ Mandamus ‑‑ Drug company obtaining mandamus to compel Minister of National Health and Welfare to issue notice of compliance respecting generic version of drug ‑‑ Federal Court of Appeal affirming order ‑‑ Whether drug company having vested rights in issuance of notice of compliance ‑‑ Whether mandamus properly granted ‑‑ Whether Federal Court of Appeal exceeding jurisdiction by issuing mandamus.

                   Held:  The appeal should be dismissed.

                   APPEAL from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, [1994] 1 F.C. 742, 51 C.P.R. (3d) 339, 162 N.R. 177, 18 Admin. L.R. (2d) 122, dismissing an appeal and cross‑appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division (1993), 49 C.P.R. (3d) 161, 66 F.T.R. 36, which granted Apotex's application for mandamus and denied Merck's application for prohibition. Appeal dismissed.

                   W. Ian C. Binnie, Q.C., and William H. Richardson, for the appellants.

                   Harry B. Radomski and Richard Naiberg, for the respondent Apotex Inc.

                   H. Lorne Morphy, Q.C., and Kent E. Thomson, for the respondents the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of National Health and Welfare.

                   The following is the judgment delivered by

                   The Court --We are all of the view that the appeal should be dismissed substantially for the reasons of Robertson J.A. in the Federal Court of Appeal, [1994] 1 F.C. 742.  The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.

                   Appeal dismissed with costs.

                   Solicitors for the appellants:  McCarthy Tétrault, Toronto.

                   Solicitors for the respondent Apotex Inc.:  Goodman & Goodman, Toronto.

                   Solicitor for the respondents the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of National Health and Welfare:  George Thomson, Ottawa.