PRACTICE |
Costs |
Apotex Inc. v. Syntex Pharmaceuticals International Ltd.
A-637-99
2001 FCA 137, Stone J.A.
2/5/01
4 pp.
Appeal from order of Reed J. ((1992), 2 C.P.R. (4th) 368)--Underlying action brought by respondent to impeach appellants' patent on basis of invalidity for obviousness, for declaration of non-infringement--Appellants counterclaimed for infringement of patent--Order below discretionary in nature, not to be interfered with on appeal unless Reed J. failed to give sufficient weight to all relevant considerations, otherwise erred in law--Except for award of double costs, no basis for interfering with exercise of discretion--Authority to award double costs conferred by r. 420(1)--R. 420(1) requiring "offer to settle" by plaintiff, not something that might or might not be viewed as offer to settle by opposite party--Consequences under rule of ill-advisedly rejecting offer to settle severe, intended to be severe so as to encourage settlement, put end to litigation of dubious outcome--Opposite party ought not to incur risk of award of double costs unless "offer to settle" such as contemplated by rule--If letter of July 3, 1998 had stated solicitors "authorized by our client to make following offer", otherwise constituted clear, unequivocal offer, it would have qualified as "offer to settle" within meaning of r. 420(1)--Appeal allowed in part--Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, r. 420(1).