Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (2005) 334 N.R. 55 (SCC)
Judge | McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ. |
Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
Case Date | November 05, 2004 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | (2005), 334 N.R. 55 (SCC);2005 SCC 26;EYB 2005-90541;[2005] SCJ No 26 (QL);[2005] ACS no 26;[2005] 1 SCR 533;334 NR 55;JE 2005-996;253 DLR (4th) 1;[2005] CarswellNat 1261;139 ACWS (3d) 552;39 CPR (4th) 449 |
Bristol-Myers v. Can. (A.G.) (2005), 334 N.R. 55 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
....................
Temp. Cite: [2005] N.R. TBEd. MY.031
Biolyse Pharma Corporation (appellant) v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada Inc., and the Attorney General of Canada (respondents) and Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association, Pfizer Canada Inc. (intervenors)
(29823; 2005 SCC 26; 2005 CSC 26)
Indexed As: Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.
May 19, 2005.
Summary:
A cancer-fighting medicine (paclitaxel) was discovered by the National Cancer Institute in the United States and was given to the public domain. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada Inc. (collectively BMS) had three patents related to the formulation and method of administration of paclitaxel marketed under the name Taxol. Biolyse submitted a New Drug Submission (NDS) for its paclitaxel for injection. Since Biolyse's drug had a different botanical source of paclitaxel than BMS's Taxol, and Biolyse made claims for new and different uses, Health Canada had recommended that Biolyse submit a NDS rather than an Abbreviated New Drug Submission. The Minister of Health issued a Notice of Compliance (NOC) to Biolyse. BMS applied to quash the NOC. BMS argued that s. 5 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations was engaged and the Minister therefore erred in failing to require that Biolyse serve a Notice of Allegation on BMS.
The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, in a decision reported at 224 F.T.R. 236, allowed the application and quashed the NOC issued to Biolyse. The court held that Biolyse had not compared its drug to another drug for the purpose of demonstrating bioequivalence and s. 5(1) of the NOC Regulations did not apply. However, the court held that s. 5(1.1) of the NOC Regulations was engaged and the Minister erred in failing to require Biolyse to serve a Notice of Allegation on BMS. Biolyse appealed, arguing that s. 5(1.1) of the NOC Regulations did not apply to its NDS.
The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 303 N.R. 63, dismissed the appeal. Biolyse appealed, arguing that s. 5(1.1) of the NOC Regulations should not be construed to apply to a NDS for an innovator drug.
The Supreme Court of Canada, Bastarache, Major and Charron, JJ.A., dissenting, allowed Biolyse's appeal. The court held that "submission" in s. 5(1.1) did not include a NDS for an innovator drug. Neither s. 5(1) nor s. 5(1.1) of the NOC Regulations was engaged and the NOC issued to Biolyse should not have been quashed.
Food and Drug Control - Topic 1105
Drugs - New drugs - Notice of compliance - Intervention on application for (incl. notice of allegation) - [See both Food and Drug Control - Topic 1109 ].
Food and Drug Control - Topic 1108
Drugs - New drugs - Notice of compliance - Judicial review - The Minister of Health issued a Notice of Compliance (NOC) to Biolyse in respect of its paclitaxel for injection - An application to quash the NOC was allowed and the decision was affirmed on appeal - Biolyse appealed - At issue on the appeal was the interpretation of s. 5(1.1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations - The Supreme Court of Canada held that on the question of the interpretation of s. 5(1.1), the Minister's opinion was not entitled to deference and the standard of review on the point was correctness - See paragraph 36.
Food and Drug Control - Topic 1109
Drugs - New drugs - Notice of compliance - New drug submissions - A cancer-fighting medicine (paclitaxel) was discovered by the National Cancer Institute in the United States and was given to the public domain - Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) had patents related to the formulation and method of administration of paclitaxel, marketed under the name Taxol - Biolyse submitted a New Drug Submission (NDS) for its paclitaxel drug - Since Biolyse's drug had a different botanical source of paclitaxel than BMS's Taxol, and Biolyse made claims for new and different uses, Health Canada had recommended that Biolyse submit a NDS rather than an Abbreviated New Drug Submission - The Minister of Health issued a Notice of Compliance (NOC) to Biolyse - A motions judge quashed the NOC, holding that s. 5(1.1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations was engaged and the Minister therefore erred in failing to require Biolyse to serve a Notice of Allegation on BMS - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 5(1.1) was not engaged and the NOC should not have been quashed - The court rejected BMS's argument that "submission" in s. 5(1.1) included a NDS for an innovator drug - The court stated, inter alia, that "An interpretation of the NOC Regulations that confers on BMS a monopoly merely by demonstrating the presence of a public domain medicine like paclitaxel in its product provides no value to the public in exchange for the monopoly BMS seeks. When the NOC Regulations are considered in their proper context, and in particular in light of the wording of s. 55.2(4) of the Patent Act that authorized them, the NOC Regulations do not have the sweeping effect contended for by BMS" - See paragraph 4.
Food and Drug Control - Topic 1109
Drugs - New drugs - Notice of compliance - New drug submissions - A cancer-fighting medicine (paclitaxel) was discovered by the National Cancer Institute in the United States and was given to the public domain - Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) had patents related to the formulation and method of administration of paclitaxel marketed under the name Taxol - Biolyse submitted a New Drug Submission (NDS) for its paclitaxel drug - Since Biolyse's drug had a different botanical source of paclitaxel than BMS's Taxol, and Biolyse made claims for new and different uses, Health Canada had recommended that Biolyse submit a NDS rather than an Abbreviated New Drug Submission - The Minister issued a Notice of Compliance (NOC) to Biolyse - A motions judge quashed the NOC, holding that s. 5(1.1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations was engaged and the Minister therefore erred in failing to require Biolyse to serve a Notice of Allegation on BMS - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 5(1.1) was not engaged and the NOC should not have been quashed - The court stated, inter alia, that "s. 5(1.1) does not apply to innovative drugs. It should be confined to applications for generic copies of patented drugs in the circumstances contemplated by the regulator, i.e. where a manufacturer makes a submission for a NOC for a drug which contains a medicine that it purports to copy from another generic but in fact copies from the innovator company that has filed the patent list" - See paragraph 69.
Cases Noticed:
Whirlpool Corp. et al. v. Camco Inc. et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1067; 263 N.R. 88; 2000 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 1].
Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc. et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1024; 263 N.R. 150; 2000 SCC 66, refd to. [para. 1].
Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. and Merck Frosst Canada Inc., [1994] 1 F.C. 742; 162 N.R. 177 (F.C.A.), affd. [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1100; 176 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 6].
Imperial Chemical Industries plc v. Novopharm Ltd. (1991), 126 N.R. 377; 35 C.P.R.(3d) 137 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].
Merck Frosst Canada Inc. et al. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) et al., [1998] 2 S.C.R. 193; 227 N.R. 299, refd to. [para. 24].
Rizzo and Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, appld. [paras. 37, 96].
Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 42, appld. [paras. 43, 96].
Francis v. Baker, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 250; 246 N.R. 45; 125 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [paras. 47, 97].
Monsanto Canada Inc. et al. v. Schmeiser et al., [2004] 1 S.C.R. 902; 320 N.R. 201; 2004 SCC 34, refd to. [para. 52].
Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2001), 199 F.T.R. 142; 10 C.P.R.(4th) 318 (T.D.), affd. (2002), 288 N.R. 24; 16 C.P.R.(4th) 425; 2002 FCA 32, refd to. [paras. 58, 112].
Ferring Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2003), 310 N.R. 186; 26 C.P.R.(4th) 155; 2003 FCA 274, refd to. [paras. 58, 112].
Toba Pharma Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2002), 227 F.T.R. 261; 21 C.P.R.(4th) 232; 2002 FCTD 927, refd to. [paras. 58, 112].
AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health) (2004), 253 F.T.R. 195; 36 C.P.R.(4th) 58; 2004 FC 736, refd to. [paras. 58, 112].
Nu-Pharm Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1999] 1 F.C. 620; 159 F.T.R. 68 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 62].
Merck & Co. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (1999), 176 F.T.R. 21 (T.D.), affd. (2000), 254 N.R. 68; 5 C.P.R.(4th) 138 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal denied, [2000] 1 S.C.R. xvii; 259 N.R. 196, refd to. [paras. 62, 80].
Nu-Pharm Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (1998), 224 N.R. 386; 80 C.P.R.(3d) 74 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].
Syntex (U.S.A.) L.L.C. et al. v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al. (2002), 292 N.R. 147; 20 C.P.R.(4th) 29 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].
Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 3; 177 N.R. 325; 122 D.L.R.(4th) 129, refd to. [para. 82].
Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 85].
Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) et al. (1986), 12 C.P.R.(3d) 438 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].
Reference Re Section 7 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations - see Merck & Co. et al. v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al.
Merck & Co. et al. v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al. (1999), 249 N.R. 110; 3 C.P.R.(4th) 77 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].
Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health) (2003), 23 C.P.R.(4th) 289 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 88].
Novopharm Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare), [1998] 3 F.C. 50; 149 F.T.R. 63 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 90].
H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2005), 333 N.R. 1; 2005 SCC 25, refd to. [para. 96].
Marche et al. v. Halifax Insurance Co. (2005), 330 N.R. 115; 230 N.S.R.(2d) 333; 729 A.P.R. 333; 2005 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 96].
Harvard College v. Commissioner of Patents, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 45; 296 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 76, refd to. [para. 96].
Chieu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 84; 280 N.R. 268; 2002 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 96].
United Taxi Drivers' Fellowship of Southern Alberta et al. v. Calgary (City), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 485; 318 N.R. 170; 346 A.R. 4; 320 W.A.C. 4; 2004 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 102].
Spar Aerospace Ltd. v. American Mobile Satellite Corp. et al., [2002] 4 S.C.R. 205; 297 N.R. 83; 2002 SCC 78, refd to. [para. 102].
R. v. McDonald (A.P.) et al. (2002), 209 N.S.R.(2d) 283; 656 A.P.R. 283 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 102].
Canadian Pacific Air Lines v. Canadian Air Lines Pilots Association, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 724; 160 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 105].
Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al. (1999), 165 F.T.R. 42; 87 C.P.R.(3d) 271 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 111].
GlaxoSmithKline Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2004), 264 F.T.R. 162; 2004 FC 1302, refd to. [para. 113].
Gerber Garment Technology Inc. v. Lectra Systems Ltd., [1997] R.P.C. 443 (Eng. C.A.), refd to. [para. 134].
Merck Frosst Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) (1998), 84 C.P.R.(3d) 492 (F.C.T.D.), affd. (2000), 259 N.R. 88; 8 C.P.R.(4th) 48 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 140].
Merck Frosst Canada Inc. et al. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) et al. (1995), 169 N.R. 342; 55 C.P.R.(3d) 302 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 140].
Merck Frosst Canada Inc. et al. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) et al., [1998] 2 S.C.R. 193; 227 N.R. 299, refd to. [para. 140].
Merck Frosst Canada Inc. et al. v. Apotex Inc. (1997), 208 N.R. 388; 72 C.P.R.(3d) 170 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 141].
Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670; 173 N.R. 321; 125 Sask.R. 81; 81 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 150].
R. v. Ulybel Enterprises Ltd., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 867; 275 N.R. 201; 206 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 304; 618 A.P.R. 304; 2001 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 154].
R.J.R.-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) - see RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général).
RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311; 164 N.R. 1; 60 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 157].
Friesen v. Minister of National Revenue, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 103; 186 N.R. 243, refd to. [para. 157].
Bayer Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (1999), 243 N.R. 170; 87 C.P.R.(3d) 293 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 157].
Eli Lilly & Co. et al. v. Novopharm Ltd. et al., [1998] 2 S.C.R. 129; 227 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 161].
R. v. McIntosh (B.B.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 686; 178 N.R. 161; 79 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 174].
R. v. Hinchey (M.F.) and Hinchey (B.A.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1128; 205 N.R. 161; 147 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 459 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 175].
R. v. Proulx (J.K.D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61; 249 N.R. 201; 142 Man.R.(2d) 161; 212 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 178].
Degelder Construction Co. v. Dancorp Developments Ltd. et al., [1998] 3 S.C.R. 90; 231 N.R. 122; 113 B.C.A.C. 1; 184 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 178].
Zeitel and Henning v. Ellscheid et al., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 142; 165 N.R. 214; 71 O.A.C. 134, refd to. [para. 182].
Bull (David) Laboratories (Canada) Inc. v. Pharmacia Inc. et al. (1994), 176 N.R. 48; 58 C.P.R.(3d) 209 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 186].
Pharmacia Inc. et al. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) - see Bull (David) Laboraties (Canada) Inc. v. Pharmacia Inc. et al.
Statutes Noticed:
Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4, sect. 55.2(1), sect. 55.2(4), sect. 55.2(5) [para. 33].
Patent Act Regulations (Can.), Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133, sect. 5(1), sect. 5(1.1) [para. 33].
Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations - see Patent Act Regulations (Can.).
Authors and Works Noticed:
Barrigar, Robert H., Canadian Patent Act Annotated (2nd Ed.) (2004 Looseleaf Update), p. PA-232.1 [para. 139].
Côté, Pierre-André, Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (3rd Ed. 2000), pp. 24, 25 [para. 97]; 308 [para. 128].
Driedger, Elmer E., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), pp. 86 [para. 182]; 87 [para. 95]; 94 [para. 117]; 247 [paras. 38, 97].
Fox, Harold G., The Canadian Law and Practice Relating to Letters Patent for Inventions (4th Ed. 1969), p. 163 [para. 133].
Garland, Steven B. and Want, Jeremy E., The Canadian Patent System: An Appropriate Balance Between the Rights of the Public and the Patentee (1999), 16 C.I.P.R. 43, generally [para. 133]; pp. 43, 44 [para. 189].
Grenier, François M., and Lemay, Catherine, Le règlement sur les médicaments brevetés (avis des conformité) (2003), 20 C.I.P.R. 51, p. 57 [para. 184].
Henderson, Gordon F., Patent Law of Canada (1994), p. 10 [para. 189].
Hore, Edward, The Notice of Compliance Regulations Under the Patent Act: The First Two Years (1995), 12 C.I.P.R. 207, pp. 208 [paras. 135, 140]; 209 to 211 [para. 142].
Hughes, Roger T., and Woodley, John H., Patents (1984) (2004 Looseleaf Update) (Issue 60), pp. 381-17 [para. 148]; 381-18, 381-19 [para. 142].
Kernochan, John M., Statutory Interpretation: An Outline of Method (1976), 3 Dal. L.J. 333, pp. 348, 349 [para. 44].
Orlhac, Thierry, The New Canadian Pharmaceutical Compulsory Licensing Provisions or How to Jump Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire (1990), 6 C.I.P.R. 279, generally [para. 8].
Smith, Margaret, Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical Products (1993), generally [para. 73].
Smith, Margaret, Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical Products in Canada - Chronology of Significant Events (March 30, 2000), generally [para. 160].
Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002), pp. 2 [para. 94]; 21 [para. 105]; 218 [para. 154]; 260, 261 [paras 125, 154]; 262 [para. 125]; 282 [para. 99]; 284 [para. 128]; 285 [para. 150]; 471, 472 [paras. 154, 179]; 499, 500 [para. 156].
Takach, George Francis, Patents: A Canadian Compendium of Law and Practice (1993), p. 119 [para. 8].
Wilcox, Peter R., and Ripley, Daphne C., The Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (2000), 16 C.I.P.R. 429, p. 433 [para. 184].
World Trade Organization, Report of the Panel on Canada - Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products, Complaint by the European Communities and their member States (March 17, 2000), Doc. WT/DS114/R, generally [paras. 47, 134].
Counsel:
Andrew J. Roman, for the appellant;
Anthony G. Creber and Patrick S. Smith, for the respondents, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada Inc;
No one appeared for the respondent, the Attorney General of Canada;
Written submission only by Edward Hore, for the intervener, the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association;
John Terry and Conor McCourt, for the intervener, Pfizer Canada Inc.
Solicitors of Record:
Miller Thomson, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant.
Gowling Lafleur Henderson, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondents, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada Inc.
Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent, the Attorney General of Canada.
Hazzard & Hore, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association.
Torys, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, Pfizer Canada Inc.
This appeal was heard on November 5, 2004, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages on May 19, 2005, including the following opinions:
Binnie, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Deschamps, Fish and Abella, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 71;
Bastarache, J., dissenting (Major and Charron, concurring) - see paragraphs 72 to 193.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Société canadienne de consultants en immigration c. Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration),
...[2000] 4 F.C. 264, (2000), 188 D.L.R. (4th) 145, 24 Admin. L.R. (3d) 279 (C.A.); Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 26, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 533, 253 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 39 C.P.R. (4th) 449; Saputo Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 FC 1016, [2010] 4 F.C.R. 274, 353......
-
Krayzel Corp. v. Equitable Trust Co., 2016 SCC 18
...389; Montréal (City) v. 2952‑1366 Québec Inc., 2005 SCC 62, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 141; Bristol‑Myers Squibb Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 26, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 533; Reliant Capital Ltd. v. Silverdale Development Corp., 2006 BCCA 226, 270 D.L.R. (4th) 717; P.A.R.C.E.L. Inc. v. Acquaviva......
-
Wilson v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2015 SCC 47
...1 S.C.R. 612; Charlebois v. Saint John (City), 2005 SCC 74, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 563; Bristol‑Myers Squibb Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 26, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 533; R. v. Hinchey, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1128; Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Minister of National Defence), 2011 SCC......
-
Canada v. Canada North Group Inc.,
...(3d) 5; British Columbia v. Henfrey Samson Belair Ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 24; Bristol‑Myers Squibb Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 26, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 533; Baxter Student Housing Ltd. v. College Housing Co-operative Ltd., [1976] 2 S.C.R. 475; R. v. Caron, 2011 SCC 5, [2011] ......
-
Montréal (City) v. 2952-1366 Québec Inc., [2005] 3 SCR 141
...Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; R. v. Goltz, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 485; Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 533, 2005 SCC 26; Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1031; R. v. L’Heureux, [1996] Q.J. No. 2135 (QL); Hunter v. Southam Inc., [......
-
Krayzel Corp. v. Equitable Trust Co., 2016 SCC 18
...389; Montréal (City) v. 2952‑1366 Québec Inc., 2005 SCC 62, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 141; Bristol‑Myers Squibb Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 26, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 533; Reliant Capital Ltd. v. Silverdale Development Corp., 2006 BCCA 226, 270 D.L.R. (4th) 717; P.A.R.C.E.L. Inc. v. Acquaviva......
-
Société canadienne de consultants en immigration c. Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration),
...[2000] 4 F.C. 264, (2000), 188 D.L.R. (4th) 145, 24 Admin. L.R. (3d) 279 (C.A.); Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 26, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 533, 253 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 39 C.P.R. (4th) 449; Saputo Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 FC 1016, [2010] 4 F.C.R. 274, 353......
-
Wilson v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2015 SCC 47
...1 S.C.R. 612; Charlebois v. Saint John (City), 2005 SCC 74, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 563; Bristol‑Myers Squibb Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 26, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 533; R. v. Hinchey, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1128; Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Minister of National Defence), 2011 SCC......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (November 21 ' 25, 2022)
...(Re), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, 2002 SCC 42, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 26, Haliburton (County) v. Gillespie, 2013 ONCA 40 Owsianik v. Equifax Canada Co., 2022 ONCA 813 Keywords: Torts, Intrusion Upon Seclusion, Breac......
-
Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (May 27 31, 2019)
...Insurance Company v. Old Republic Insurance Company of Canada, 2015 ONCA 699, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 26, Transport North American Express Inc. v. New Solutions Financial Corp., 2004 SCC 7, Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53 Hilso......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (October 24-28, 2016)
...of the enabling Act, having regard to the purpose of the enabling provisions: Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 26. The modern approach to statutory interpretation involves a textual, contextual and purposive analysis of the statute or provision in Ayr Farmers ......
-
The Supreme Court Of Canada Clarifies The Law On Constructive Takings
...relied on in CPR, such as Manitoba Fisheries Ltd. v The Queen, [1979] 1 SCR 101 ("Manitoba Fisheries") and British Columbia v Tener, [1985] 1 SCR 533 ("Tener"). In Fisheries, the Court held that the government had acquired an advantage through the acquisition of a statutory monopoly that en......
-
Patents
...at 351–53; Ferring Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health) , 2007 FC 300, aff’d 2007 FCA 276; Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Canada (A.G.) , [2005] 1 S.C.R. 533, 2005 SCC 26; AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health) , [2006] 2 S.C.R. 560, 2006 SCC 49; Merck Frosst Canada Inc. v. Cana......
-
Reliance on Extrinsic Aids
...judge seems to have been allowed in for general background. 5 See, for example, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v Canada (Attorney General) , [2005] 1 SCR 533 at para 156. 6 See, for example, Apotex Inc v Canada (Attorney General ), [2000] FCJ No 634 at paras 55 and 73–74 (CA). STAT UTORY INTERPRET......
-
Management and Enforcement
...referred to in 2703203 Manitoba Inc. v. Parks , 2007 NSCA 36 at [120] [ 2703203 ]; Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Canada (A.G.) , 2005 SCC 26 at [134] (dissent); Grimme Maschinenfabrik GmbH & Co KG v. Scott , [2010] EWCA Civ 1110 at [88]. See section E(9), “Time Limits for Suing,” in this chap......
-
Table of Cases
...EWCA Civ 169, [2001] R.P.C. 1 ........................................................ 319 Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Canada (A.G.), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 533, 2005 SCC 26, 39 C.P.R. (4th) 449 ..................................................20, 410, 609 Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. F.H. Fauldin......