The appellant, a user of the drug Paxil, brought a proposed class action against the respondent pharmaceutical companies alleging abuse of process, conspiracy, and waiver of tort.
The appellant claimed the respondents misused the Notice of Compliance proceedings under the Patent Act to delay the entry of a cheaper generic equivalent into the market, forcing consumers to pay supra-competitive prices.
The motion judge struck the statement of claim, finding it disclosed no viable cause of action.
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, concluding that the appellant was not a party to the legal process initiated by the respondents, the respondents' predominant purpose was to advance their own economic interests rather than injure the appellant, and there was no predicate wrongdoing to support a waiver of tort claim.
