Eli Lilly and Co. v. Novopharm Ltd.
T-1946-93
Strayer J.
24/5/94
6 pp.
Notice of motion by respondent asking that originating notice of motion of applicants be struck out on ground disclosing no reasonable cause of action -- Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, s. 419 not available in circumstances, nor on basis of gap rule, as proceeding not action and notice of motion not pleading -- One cannot assert pleading so defective as to show no reasonable cause of action or to be frivolous or vexatious or abuse of process of Court if not clear pleading failed to take position necessary to maintain claim or defence -- Notice of allegation filed by respondent not squarely asserting position to which respondent says applicants failed to provide response -- For respondent to attack applicants' originating notice of motion, must first amend notice of allegations -- Wish of Federal Court to deal with matters as quickly as possible, and to waste as little time as possible in myriad of interlocutory motions -- Court may have to make special rulings as to costs where evident such motions essentially for purpose of delay -- In interest of respondent to conduct itself so as to minimize excuses for interlocutory motions, including providing complete and detailed notice of allegations and statement of legal and factual bases for such allegations; and to provide these at outset prior to filing of any notice of motion by applicant -- Respondent failed to do so -- Application dismissed -- Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133, s. 419.