Low v. Pfizer Canada Inc. et al., 2015 BCCA 506

• Judge: Bennett, Garson and Savage, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: Tuesday September 15, 2015
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2015 BCCA 506;(2015), 380 B.C.A.C. 242 (CA)

Low v. Pfizer Can. Inc. (2015), 380 B.C.A.C. 242 (CA);

    655 W.A.C. 242

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. DE.015

Britton Low (respondent/plaintiff) v. Pfizer Canada Inc., Pfizer Inc., Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer Research and Development Company N.V./S.A. (appellants/defendants)

(CA42139; 2015 BCCA 506)

Indexed As: Low v. Pfizer Canada Inc. et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Bennett, Garson and Savage, JJ.A.

December 8, 2015.

Summary:

The defendants were a group of companies (collectively Pfizer) that produced, marketed, supplied and/or sold Viagra to consumers in Canada. In 2012, Pfizer's Canadian Patent 2,163,446 for the active ingredient in Viagra was found to be invalid in Notice of Compliance proceedings for failure to meet patent disclosure requirements. That judgment allowed generic drug manufacturers to enter the market and sell generic versions of Viagra at a lower price than previously charged. Low, a Viagra consumer, proposed a class action against Pfizer, claiming that Pfizer had unlawfully abused the patent system, and as a result of its unlawful conduct, Pfizer had overcharged the purchasers of Viagra. Low applied to certify the action, relying on the tort of unlawful interference with economic relations and unjust enrichment. The only issue on the application was whether Low's claim disclosed a cause of action.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1469, found that Low did disclose a valid cause of action in intentional interference with economic relations and unjust enrichment. Pfizer appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the action. The court held that the completeness of the Patent Regulatory Regime (i.e., the Patent Act, the Food and Drugs Act and Regulations, and the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations), foreclosed parallel civil actions by consumers that were rooted in a breach of the Patent Act. The court opined even if the court had found that the completeness of the Patent Regulatory Regime did not prohibit common law actions, it would not allow certification of the claim in unlawful interference with economic relations or on the basis of unjust enrichment.

Patents of Invention - Topic 18

Patents of invention - General - Whether patent regulatory regime a complete code that bars civil action by consumers - See paragraphs 46 to 74.

Restitution - Topic 64

Unjust enrichment - General - Juristic reason for enrichment - See paragraphs 98 to 104.

Restitution - Topic 102

Unjust enrichment - Bars - Statutory code - See paragraphs 93 to 98.

Torts - Topic 5021

Interference with economic relations - Elements of liability - General - See paragraphs 75 to 77.

Torts - Topic 5023

Interference with economic relations - Elements of liability - Use of unlawful means - See paragraphs 79 to 92.

Cases Noticed:

Pfizer Canada Inc. et al. v. Novopharm Ltd. et al., [2012] 3 S.C.R. 625; 436 N.R. 299; 2012 SCC 60, refd to. [para. 2].

Teva Canada Ltd. v. Pfizer Canada Inc. - see Pfizer Canada Inc. et al. v. Novopharm Ltd. et al.

Sanofi-Synthelabo Canada Inc. et al. v. Apotex Inc. et al., [2008] 3 S.C.R. 265; 381 N.R. 125; 2008 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 9].

Harris v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc. (2010), 272 O.A.C. 214; 2010 ONCA 872, refd to. [para. 13].

Apotex Inc. v. Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals (2012), 431 F.T.R. 1; 2012 FC 1339, affd. (2014), 456 N.R. 177; 2014 FCA 13, refd to. [para. 21].

Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. et al. v. Microsoft Corp. et al., [2013] 3 S.C.R. 477; 450 N.R. 201; 2013 SCC 57, refd to. [para. 27].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 595; 117 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 27].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.

Koubi v. Mazda Canada Inc. et al. (2012), 325 B.C.A.C. 172; 553 W.A.C. 172; 2012 BCCA 310, refd to. [para. 29].

Wakelam v. Johnson & Johnson et al. (2014), 350 B.C.A.C. 70; 598 W.A.C. 70; 2014 BCCA 36, refd to. [para. 29].

Macaraeg v. E Care Contact Centers Ltd. (2008), 255 B.C.A.C. 126; 430 W.A.C. 126; 2008 BCCA 182, dist. [para. 29].

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Canada, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205; 45 N.R. 425, refd to. [para. 30].

Bram Enterprises Ltd. et al. v. A.I. Enterprises Ltd. et al., [2014] 1 S.C.R. 177; 453 N.R. 273; 416 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 1079 A.P.R. 1; 2014 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 34].

DBC Marine Safety Systems Ltd. v. Commissioner of Patents et al. (2008), 382 N.R. 100; 2008 FCA 256, refd to. [para. 48].

Apotex Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories Ltd. et al., [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 356; 2013 ONSC 356, affd. [2013] O.A.C. Uned. 452; 2013 ONCA 555, refd to. [para. 48].

Weatherford Canada Ltd. et al. v. Corlac Inc. et al. (2011), 422 N.R. 49; 2011 FCA 228, refd to. [para. 48].

Apotex Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co. et al. (2015), 334 O.A.C. 99; 2015 ONCA 305, refd to. [para. 50].

Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. et al. (2009), 391 N.R. 336; 2009 FCA 187, refd to. [para. 54].

Apotex Inc. v. Nycomed Canada Inc. and Nycomed GmbH (2011), 426 N.R. 173; 2011 FCA 358, refd to. [para. 55].

Apotex v. Eli Lilly - see Apotex Inc. v. Nycomed Canada Inc. and Nycomed GmbH.

Sanofi Pasteur Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2011), 393 F.T.R. 294; 2011 FC 859, refd to. [para. 70].

Ratiopharm Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2014), 455 F.T.R. 241; 2014 FC 502, refd to. [para. 70].

Celgene Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2011), 410 N.R. 127; 2011 SCC 1, refd to. [para. 70].

Tarleton v. M'Gawley (1793), 170 E.R. 153, refd to. [para. 82].

Edwards et al. v. Law Society of Upper Canada et al. (2001), 277 N.R. 145; 153 O.A.C. 388; 2001 SCC 80, refd to. [para. 84].

Odhavji Estate et al. v. Woodhouse et al. (2003), 312 N.R. 305; 180 O.A.C. 201; 2003 SCC 69, refd to. [para. 84].

Hill et al. v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board et al., [2007] 3 S.C.R. 129; 368 N.R. 1; 230 O.A.C. 260; 2007 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 84].

Garland v. Consumers' Gas Co. (2004), 319 N.R. 38; 186 O.A.C. 128; 2004 SCC 25, refd to. [para. 99].

Pacific National Investments Ltd. v. Victoria (City), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 575; 327 N.R. 100; 206 B.C.A.C. 99; 338 W.A.C. 99; 2004 SCC 75, refd to. [para. 99].

Statutes Noticed:

Food and Drugs Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-27, generally [paras. 8 and 46 et seq.].

Food and Drugs Act Regulations (Can.), Food and Drug Regulations, C.R.C., c. 870, Part C, Division 8, C.08.004 [paras. 8 and 46 et seq.].

Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4, generally [para. 8].

Patent Act Regulations (Can.), Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133, generally [paras. 8 and 46 et seq.].

Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations - see Patent Act Regulations (Can.).

Counsel:

R. Sutton, R. Agarwal and S. Tenai, for the appellants;

R.M. Mogerman, D.G.A. Jones and M.L. Segal, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in Vancouver, B.C., on September 15, 2015, before Bennett, Garson and Savage, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered for the court by Garson, J.A., on December 8, 2015.