Wellcome Foundation Ltd. v. Novopharm Ltd.
T-2998-91
Teitelbaum J.
8/10/92
6 pp.
Application to stay operation of order requiring defendant to provide further and better particulars pending hearing of appeal therefrom -- Action for infringement of patent for invention entitled "Tablet Formulation" -- Federal Court R. 1909 permitting Court, in its discretion, to stay proceedings in any cause or matter where, for any reason, in interest of justice to do so -- Application dismissed -- Similarity in exercise of discretion to grant stay and to grant interlocutory injunction: Honeywell Inc. v. Litton Systems Canada Ltd. (1982), 70 C.P.R. (2d) 227 (F.C.T.D.) -- Applicant must show arguable case, irreparable harm and balance of convenience in its favour -- Apotex, Inc. v. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd. (1985), 6 C.P.R. (3d) 117 (F.C.T.D.): stay should only be granted in clearest cases -- Neither irreparable harm if stay not granted, nor balance of convenience lying in applicant's favour -- In absence of evidence as to expense, substantial effort or expense not constituting irreparable harm -- If appeal successful, particulars so provided can be disregarded -- That appeal not to be heard for three or four months immaterial -- Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, R. 1909.