[2012] 2 F.C.R. D-4
Practice
Stay of Proceedings
Motions brought in context of appeal from Federal Court decision (2011 FC 1023), which appeal yet to be heard—Respondents seeking stay of proceedings until after Supreme Court of Canada rendering decision in related field; applicant seeking order expediting appeal—Whether applicable legal test (1) in interests of justice to order stay or (2) tripartite test set out in RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311—Nature of respondents’ request is that Federal Court of Appeal not hear appeal until later date, not that Court forbid another body from exercising own jurisdiction—While in D & B Companies of Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) (1994), 58 C.P.R. (3d) 342 (F.C.A.), Federal Court of Appeal observing that Competition Tribunal correctly applying RJR-MacDonald test to determine whether to delay hearing, observation not to be seen as statement of general principle, binding in all future cases—Three considerations reducing authority of observation in D & B Companies: observation therein constituting obiter; in decision, Competition Tribunal seeing factors normally canvassed under RJR-MacDonald test as relevant to exercise of discretion; decision therein explained as one made by specialist administrative tribunal about what factors ought to apply to such matters before it—Therefore, RJR-MacDonald test not applying to respondents’ motion for stay—Respondents not establishing interests of justice supporting delaying appeal herein—As to applicant’s motion, uneventful pace at which appeal prosecuted herein belying need for expedition order—Motions dismissed.
AstraZeneca Canada, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC (A-344-11, 2011 FCA 312, Stratas J.A., judgment dated November 17, 2011, 10 pp.)