Steve Mason

Apotex brought a motion to amend its pleadings in an ongoing patent dispute over the drug Lansoprazole.

Following the Supreme Court's rejection of the 'Promise Doctrine' in AstraZeneca, Apotex sought to recast its previous Promise Doctrine allegations as claims of insufficiency, overbreadth, and fraud under sections 27 and 53 of the Patent Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed amendments were legally untenable and merely repackaged the defunct Promise Doctrine.

Furthermore, the court held that the fraud allegations lacked the strict particularity required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and awarded elevated costs to the respondents.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing their Rule 21 motion to strike the plaintiff's amended statement of claim.

The defendants argued that the plaintiff was not entitled to seek declaratory relief under Canadian or American law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions or reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision.

The court noted that issues regarding the applicability of US law to a cross-border declaration could be litigated later in a motion for summary judgment.

The complainants alleged that they were subjected to constant verbal and physical sexual harassment by the co-owner of the respondent company during their employment.

The respondent denied the allegations, claiming they were fabricated to extract money.

The Board of Inquiry accepted the evidence of the complainants and their witnesses, including similar fact evidence from other female employees, finding that the respondent engaged in a course of vexatious sexual conduct.

The Board held both the individual respondent and the corporate respondent liable, as the individual was the directing mind of the company.

The respondents were ordered to pay compensation for lost wages, general damages for mental anguish, and interest, and to comply with monitoring requirements.