Fiona Legere

The plaintiffs, three Russian cyclists, sued the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and Richard McLaren for damages, alleging they were falsely implicated in a state-sponsored doping scheme and wrongfully excluded from the 2016 Rio Olympic Games.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action on the grounds that the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) had exclusive jurisdiction and that the action was an abuse of process.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the motion, finding that the essential character of the dispute fell within the broad arbitration clauses of the Olympic Charter and the athletes' entry forms.

The court also held that the action was an abuse of process as the plaintiffs were attempting to re-litigate a dispute they had already brought before the CAS.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for two counts of criminal harassment, arguing that the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence by placing a higher burden on his testimony than on the complainant's.

The Superior Court of Justice reviewed the trial judge's reasons, which relied on the W.(D.) and J.J.R.D. frameworks for assessing credibility and reasonable doubt.

The court found that the trial judge properly instructed herself, gave considered reasons for accepting the complainant's evidence, and did not engage in uneven scrutiny.

The appeal was dismissed.

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.