PRACTICE |
Parties |
Intervention |
Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health)
T-78-03
2004 FC 43, Russell J.
14/1/04
14 pp.
Motion to set aside in part Prothonotary's order dismissing Merck Frosst's (MF) motion for leave to be added as party respondent or, in alternative, leave to intervene in within application--Prothonotary holding third parties such as MF not "directly" affected by review, approval of general drug submission or ANDS by Minister--MF submitted Prothono-tary erred in law in concluding MF not meeting criteria for intervener status--More precisely, MF alleged Prothonotary confused test for intervention with test for granting party status--Test for intervention set out in Federal Court Rules, 1998, r. 109(2)(b)--Fundamental question to be determined whether participation of proposed intervener will assist Court in determining factual or legal issue related to proceedings-- MF wishes to provide perspective on potential Food and Drug Regulations, s. 8 damages issues--Fact decision by Minister in favour of Apotex may eventually permit Apotex to initiate, under Regulations, s. 8 damages claim against MF not meaning damages become aspect of factual or legal issues that will be addressed by Minister in proceedings initiated by Apotex--If this were the case, s. 8 damages would be issue in many such proceedings where Minister called upon to review and consider abbreviated new drug submissions made by generic manufacturers--"Affected by the outcome" not same as showing how "participation will assist the determination of a factual or legal issue related to the proceedings", fundamental consideration under r. 109--Prothonotary followed appropriate approach in analysing request for intervener status--Decision not based upon wrong principle or misapprehension of facts--Motion dismissed--Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, r. 109(2)(b)--Food and Drug Regulations, C.R.C., c. 870.