Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Canada ( Minister of National Health and Welfare )
A-92-98 / A-93-98
Strayer J.A.
13/1/99
8 pp.
Appeals from dismissal of application for prohibition-Appellants contending Jerome A.C.J. erred by refusing to declare continuation of stay under Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, s. 7-S. 7(1)(e) providing Minister shall not issue notice of compliance to second person before expiration of 30 months after receipt of proof of making of any application referred to in s. 6(1)-S. 7(4) providing s. 7(1)(e) ceases to apply in respect of s. 6(1) application if application finally dismissed by court-Although not mentioned in notices of motion, appellants seeking declaration stay provided by s. 7 should continue until all possible appeals exhausted because, until that happened, applications for prohibition could not be considered to be "finally dismissed"-Whether Motions Judge should have declared stay established by Regulations should continue "until all appeals from this Court's judgment have been exhausted"-Appeals dismissed-Would have been improper to seek such relief in those originating notices of motion because no such relief contemplated in Regulations-Regulations providing procedure for seeking prohibition to block issue of notices of compliance, and appellants specifically invoked those Regulations in originating notices-Regulations, not Court, creating automatic stay, providing conditions for termination-Special power of Court under s. 7(5) to shorten, extend stay where party failing to reasonably cooperate not invoked here-Court having no direct authority to extend stay-Not having authority while acting under Regulations to issue declaration as to proper interpretation of "finally dismissed" in s. 7(4)-Proper remedy would be one sought under s. 18.1 of Federal Court Act-Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133, s. 7 (as am. by SOR/98-166, s. 6)-Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, s. 18.1 (as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 5).