PATENTS
Practice
Case management—Appeal from Prothonotary’s order granting, in part, applicants’ motion for extension of 24-month perod specified in Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (Regulations), s. 7(1)(e), by 105 days—On appeal, Pharmascience Inc. (Pharmascience) seeking to shorten 24-month period—On cross-appeal, applicants seeking to lengthen extension—Prothonotary appointed to assist case management Judge—Standard of review to be applied by motions judge to discretionary decision of prothonotary clearly established in Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425 (C.A.)—No basis for reaching conclusion different from that reached by prothonotary—No basis whatsoever to vary length of extension granted—When Aqua-Gem test propounded, Federal Court not in business of case management in any formalized way, such as it has been since complete revision of Court’s Rules in 1998—This change in practice of Court might warrant revisiting Aqua-Gem test, at least on facts equivalent to those giving rise to these reasons—Decision in Sawridge Band v. Canada, [2002] 2 F.C. 346 (C.A.) might provide first step for such review—Appeal dismissed—Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133, s. 7(1)(e) (as am. by SOR/98-166, s. 6).
Abbott Laboratories v. Canada (Minister of Health) (T-1035-02, 2004 FC 1049, Gibson J., order dated 29/7/04, 18 pp.)