Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Nu-Pharm Inc.
T-1713-95
Muldoon J.
23/1/96
6 pp.
Interlocutory motion for declaration repondent Nu-Pharm served with originating notice of motion within prescribed time, or extending time for service and allowing re-service-Motion allowed-No service ever effected on respondent Nu-Pharm as process server left notice with other drug company and mistakenly reported to applicant originating notice duly served-First, Minister served, within prescribed time, with proof of application for order prohibiting Minister from issuing notice of compliance, in accordance with Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, s. 6-Second, process server's error quintessentially reasonable reason for delay and for invocation of Court's discretion pursuant to RR. 3(1)(c), 6 or 1614(1) ex debito justiciae-When Minister only named respondent and second person applied to intervene, second person added as respondent later by order of Court, but validity of proceeding not challenged: Merck Frosst Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) (1994), 58 C.P.R. (3d) 245 (F.C.T.D.)-Applicant's proceedings on originating motion validly constituted- Declaration valid service of originating motion effected on Nu-Pharm-Time for filing respondent's affidavit evidence extended to 30 days after respondent's notification of present order-Time for filing applicants' application record extended to 60 days after applicants' notification of present order-Other prescribed times amended accordingly-In consequence of disposition herein, Nu-Pharm agreeing that if diposition not appealed, Nu-Pharm will withdraw its current mandamus proceedings against Minister in regard to subject matter of concern herein-Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133, s. 6- Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, RR. 3(1)(c), 6 (as enacted by SOR/90-846, s. 2), 1614(1) (as enacted by SOR/92-43, s. 19).