Daniel George Cohen

The applicants sought an order under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act to declare the respondents vexatious litigants and preclude further litigation.

The respondents, particularly Evan Argiloff, had engaged in persistent and groundless proceedings, including multiple lawsuits, improper construction liens, and repeated attempts to obtain default judgments, all stemming from a failed business relationship.

The court found that the respondents' conduct was vexatious and persistent, clearly outweighing their right of access to the courts.

The application was granted, declaring the respondents vexatious litigants and imposing restrictions on future proceedings.

Innovator pharmaceutical companies brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of a generic manufacturer’s claim for disgorgement of revenues or profits based on unjust enrichment.

The claim arose from alleged wrongful invocation of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, which had delayed the generic manufacturer’s market entry for a drug containing lansoprazole.

The court held that s. 8 of the NOC Regulations constitutes a complete statutory code governing compensation for delayed market entry and excludes equitable remedies such as disgorgement of innovators’ profits.

The Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Apotex v. Eli Lilly Canada Inc. was followed as highly persuasive authority confirming that Parliament deliberately excluded profit disgorgement through the 2006 amendments to the Regulations.

In any event, the statutory framework and the parties’ settlement agreement each constituted juristic reasons defeating the unjust enrichment claim.