PRACTICE |
Parties |
Intervention |
Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General)
T-1120-01
2001 FCT 1168, Kelen J.
26/10/01
6 pp.
Canadian Drug Manufacturers' Association (CDMA), representing generic drug manufacturers, seeking leave to intervene in application for judicial review of Health Minister's refusal to add certain Canadian patents held by Pfizer Canada Inc., Schering Canada Inc. to patent register--Minister initially decided patent could not be added to register due to Canadian filing date of patent application--Applicant commenced proceeding in Federal Court for judicial review--Minister reconsidered whether "filing date" of patent in Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, s. 4(4) including priority date, announced would hold decision pending "policy consultation"--Applicant withdrew application for judicial review on basis decision would be made subsequent to policy review--Minister requested submissions from industry in respect of policy consultation on issue--CDMA made significant submission--Upon consideration of submissions, Minister decided patents could not be added to register on basis "filing date" could mean only Canadian filing date--Enclosed "Issue Analysis" with decision--CDMA's submission, "Issue Analysis" part of record before Court--Criteria for intervener status: (1) applicant must have interest in outcome; (2) rights of applicant will be seriously affected by outcome of litigation; (3) applicant, as intervener, will bring different perspective to proceedings--Application allowed--(1) CDMA members directly affected by outcome of application--(2) Existence of justiciable, veritable public interest evidenced by (i) Minister requiring input from public on important issue of interpretation; (ii) Minister released public policy document with decision; (iii) decision involves interpretation of international treaties; (3) uncertain whether respondent will advance CDMA's position at hearing and no other reasonable or efficient means for CDMA position to be submitted; (4) interests of justice served by intervention of CDMA in that Court better served to have proposed intervener explain written submissions already on Court's record with respect to interpretation of s. 4; (5) CDMA already part of case at Minister's invitation; (6) CDMA intervention will not delay proceedings--Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133, s. 4(4) (as am. by SOR/98-166, s. 3).