Pfizer Inc. v. Canada
T-667-99
Lemieux J.
14/6/99
13 pp.
Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association (CDMA) seeking leave to intervene in interlocutory injunction proceeding, part of action for declaration expiry date of patent October 30, 2000 instead of August 31, 1999-CDMA stating members, virtually all major generic drug manufacturers in Canada, directly affected by issues in action, interlocutory injunction proceedings; intervention necessary to ensure all matters in dispute effectively, completely determined-Claiming no single issue more directly affecting generic drug companies than expiry date of pharmaceutical patents; action casting doubt on validity, effect of Patent Act, s. 45, causing irreparable harm to generic pharmaceutical industry-Federal Court Rule, 1998, r. 109 dealing with motion to intervene-Under former Rules, no general provision governing intervention before Court, but several rules governing different subject-matters or proceedings, and gap rule used to cover other situations-R. 109 not codifying previous case law-Requiring proposed intervener to indicate how participation will assist determination of factual or legal issue related to proceeding, indicating that this factor important criteria in evaluating whether intervention should be permitted-Line of authority fitting situation here exemplified in Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1990] 1 F.C. 74 (T.D.) (intervention of Canadian Cancer Society); [1990] 1 F.C. 84 (T.D.) (intervention of Institute of Canadian Advertising); [1990] 1 F.C. 90 (C.A.) (dismissal of appeal from granting of intervention of former, but allowing appeal of latter)-Hugessen J.A. endorsing criteria enunciated by Rouleau J.; acknowledging area of law relating to intervention rapidly evolving particularly with advent of Charter-Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236, reducing situations where public interest standing to commence proceedings will be granted, also impacting on developments in this area of law in favour of granting intervention rights to public interest organizations or industry associations in appropriate circumstances, where public interest and public law issues of importance at stake-In addition to enumerating criteria, Rouleau J. stating Court must consider nature of issue involved, likelihood of applicant being able to make useful contribution to resolution of action, with no injustice being imposed on immediate parties-In similar case, Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (1994), 79 F.T.R. 235 (F.C.T.D.) after setting out formulation of intervention criteria, Simpson J. allowed intervention of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada, CDMA's counterpart for drug manufacturers holding patent rights, in case involving validity of Regulations-CDMA granted intervener status in interlocutory injunction proceedings-Nature of litigation raising broad public law issues going beyond private, commercial interest of participants-Proceedings will have substantial impact on CDMA-CDMA can bring perspective different than that of federal government-CDMA's intervention will neither delay proceedings nor materially affect any other party in conduct of proceeding-Clear how rights of CDMA, members will be affected-CDMA showing how it will bring point of view different than Apotex, satisfying Court proposed evidence of different nature, kind than that of defendants-Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, r. 109.