Federal Court of Appeal of Canada Crest Federal Court of Appeal of Canada
français

Access to decisions


Recent Decisions


Access by

Year
Style of Cause
Docket Number
Neutral Citation

Search


Stay Informed


Other Decisions

Federal Court
Tax Court of Canada
Supreme Court of Canada
Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs
Printer-Friendly PagePrinter-Friendly Page

     A-77-97

CORAM:      PRATTE J.A.

     HUGESSEN J.A.

     DÉCARY J.A.

B E T W E E N :

     GLAXO WELLCOME INC.

     - and -

     THE WELLCOME FOUNDATION LIMITED

     Appellants

     (Applicants)

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

     - and -

     THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CANADA

     Respondents

     (Respondents)

     - and -

     APOTEX INC.

     - and -

     NOVOPHARM LIMITED

     Respondents

     (Intervenors)

     Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, Thursday, March 20, 1997.

     Judgment rendered from the Bench, March 20, 1997.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

DELIVERED BY:      HUGESSEN J.A.

     A-78-97

CORAM:      PRATTE J.A.

     HUGESSEN J.A.

     DÉCARY J.A.

B E T W E E N :

     MERCK FROSST CANADA INC.

     - and -

     MERCK & CO. INC.

     Appellants

     (Applicants)

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

     - and -

     THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CANADA

     Respondents

     (Respondents)

     - and -

     APOTEX INC.

     - and -

     NOVOPHARM LIMITED

     Respondents

     (Intervenors)

     Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, Thursday, March 20, 1997.

     Judgment rendered from the Bench, March 20, 1997.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

DELIVERED BY:      HUGESSEN J.A.

     A-79-97

CORAM:      PRATTE J.A.

     HUGESSEN J.A.

     DÉCARY J.A.

B E T W E E N :

     MERCK FROSST CANADA INC.

     - and -

     MERCK & CO. INC.

     Appellants

     (Applicants)

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

     - and -

     THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CANADA

     Respondents

     (Respondents)

     - and -

     APOTEX INC.

     - and -

     NOVOPHARM LIMITED

     Respondents

     (Intervenors)

     Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, Thursday, March 20, 1997.

     Judgment rendered from the Bench, March 20, 1997.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

DELIVERED BY:      HUGESSEN J.A.

     A-77-97

CORAM:      PRATTE J.A.

     HUGESSEN J.A.

     DÉCARY J.A.

B E T W E E N :

     GLAXO WELLCOME INC.

     - and -

     THE WELLCOME FOUNDATION LIMITED

     Appellants

     (Applicants)

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

     - and -

     THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CANADA

     Respondents

     (Respondents)

     - and -

     APOTEX INC.

     - and -

     NOVOPHARM LIMITED

     Respondents

     (Intervenors)

     A-78-97

B E T W E E N :

     MERCK FROSST CANADA INC.

     - and -

     MERCK & CO. INC.

     Appellants

     (Applicants)

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

     - and -

     THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CANADA

     Respondents

     (Respondents)

     - and -

     APOTEX INC.

     - and -

     NOVOPHARM LIMITED

     Respondents

     (Intervenors)

     A-79-97

B E T W E E N :

     MERCK FROSST CANADA INC.

     - and -

     MERCK & CO. INC.

     Appellants

     (Applicants)

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

     - and -

     THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CANADA

     Respondents

     (Respondents)

     - and -

     APOTEX INC.

     - and -

     NOVOPHARM LIMITED

     Respondents

     (Intervenors)



     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

     (Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario,

     Thursday, March 20, 1997)

HUGESSEN J.A.

     We have not been persuaded that the motions judge wrongly exercised his discretion in granting leave to the respondents to intervene in judicial review proceedings pursuant to Rule 1611.

     The only point on which we called on counsel for the respondents was as to the power of the motions judge to grant a right of appeal to the intervenors. While the point is not wholly free from doubt we think it has been settled by this Court's judgment in Sunshine Village Corp. v. Canada (Minister of the Environment)1. The appellants have not convinced us that that case was wrongly decided.

     The appeal will be dismissed.

     "James K. Hugessen"

     J.A.

     FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

     A-77-97

B E T W E E N :

     GLAXO WELLCOME INC.

     - and -

     THE WELLCOME FOUNDATION LIMITED

     Appellants

     (Applicants)

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

     - and -

     THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CANADA

     Respondents

     (Respondents)

     - and -

     APOTEX INC.

     - and -

     NOVOPHARM LIMITED

     Respondents

     (Intervenors)

     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

     FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

     A-78-97

B E T W E E N :

     MERCK FROSST CANADA INC.

     - and -

     MERCK & CO. INC.

     Appellants

     (Applicants)

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

     - and -

     THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CANADA

     Respondents

     (Respondents)

     - and -

     APOTEX INC.

     - and -

     NOVOPHARM LIMITED

     Respondents

     (Intervenors)

     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

     FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

     A-79-97

B E T W E E N :

     MERCK FROSST CANADA INC.

     - and -

     MERCK & CO. INC.

     Appellants

     (Applicants)

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

     - and -

     THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CANADA

     Respondents

     (Respondents)

     - and -

     APOTEX INC.

     - and -

     NOVOPHARM LIMITED

     Respondents

     (Intervenors)

     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

__________________

1      June 5, 1996, A-464-95, (F.C.A.) per Stone J.A.[unreported]


FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

COURT FILE NO.: A-79-97

APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE TRIAL DIVISION DATED JANUARY 29, 1997 IN T-304-96.

STYLE OF CAUSE: Merck Frosst Canada Inc. et al. v. The Minister of National Health and Welfare et al.

PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING: Thursday, March 20, 1997

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: Pratte J. A. Hugessen J.A. Décary J. A.

RENDERED FROM THE BENCH BY: Hugessen J. A.

APPEARANCES:

Ms. Judith M. Robinson

Mr. Leigh D. Crestohl for the Appellants

Mr. André Lespérance for the Respondents Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Edward Hore

Mr. Roger B. Bauman for the Respondents Apotex Inc. and Novopharm Limited.

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Ogilvy Renault

Montreal, Quebec for the Appellants

George Thomson

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario for the Respondents Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Attorney General of Canada

Hazzard & Hore

Toronto, Ontario for the Respondents Apotex Inc. and Novopharm Limited.

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

COURT FILE NO.: A-78-97

APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE TRIAL DIVISION DATED JANUARY 29, 1997 IN T-306-96.

STYLE OF CAUSE: Merck Frosst Canada Inc. et al. v.

The Minister of National Health and Welfare et al.

PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING: Thursday, March 20, 1997

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: Pratte J. A. Hugessen,  J.A. Décary J. A.

RENDERED FROM THE BENCH BY: Hugessen, J. A.

APPEARANCES:

Ms. Judith M. Robinson

Mr. Leigh D. Crestohl for the Appellants

Mr. André Lespérance for the Respondents Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Edward Hore

Mr. Roger B. Bauman for the Respondents Apotex Inc. and Novopharm Limited.

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Ogilvy Renault

Montreal, Quebec for the Appellants

George Thomson

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario for the Respondents Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Attorney General of Canada

Hazzard & Hore

Toronto, Ontario for the Respondents Apotex Inc. and Novopharm Limited.

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

COURT FILE NO.: A-77-97

APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE TRIAL DIVISION DATED JANUARY 29, 1997 IN T-386-96.

STYLE OF CAUSE: Glaxo Wellcome Inc. v.

The Minister of National Health and Welfare et al.

PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING: Thursday, March 20, 1997

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: Pratte J. A. Hugessen J. A. Décary J.A.

RENDERED FROM THE BENCH BY: Hugessen J. A.

APPEARANCES:

Ms. Judith M. Robinson

Mr. Leigh D. Crestohl for the Appellants

Mr. André Lespérance for the Respondents Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Edward Hore

Mr. Roger B. Bauman for the Respondents Apotex Inc. and Novopharm Limited.

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Ogilvy Renault

Montreal, Quebec for the Appellants

George Thomson

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario for the Respondents Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Attorney General of Canada

Hazzard & Hore

Toronto, Ontario for the Respondents Apotex Inc. and Novopharm Limited.


Modified : 2007-04-24 Top of the page Important Notices

[ Download Adobe Reader  |  Printer-Friendly Page ]