IN THE MATTER OF Glycobiosciences Inc v. Industria Farmaceutica et al., 2024 ONSC 7412

COURT FILE NO.: CV-23-25-00 DATE: 2024 03 01

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

GLYCOBIOSCIENCES INC. Kevin Drizen, for the Plaintiff Plaintiff

• and -

INDUSTRIA FARMACEUTICA ANDROMACO, S.A., DE C.V. and MONTEBELLO PACKAGING and NADRO S.A.P.I. DE CV Andrew Moeser and Alexis Vaughan, for the Defendant Defendant

HEARD: December 4, 2023

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MIRZA J.

INTRODUCTION

[1] The Defendant and moving party, Industria Farmacéutica Andrómaco S.A. de C.V. (Andrómaco) is a Mexican pharmaceutical company.

[2] Andrómaco operates primarily in the Mexican market. It does not have an office, assets or operations in Ontario.

[3] The Plaintiff and respondent, Glycobiosciences Inc. (Glyco) is an Ontario corporation. Kevin Drizen is the sole officer, employee, and directing mind of Glyco. He was previously granted leave to represent the corporation.

[4] From 2013 to 2021, Andrómaco and Glyco entered into a series of agreements relating to a wound gel product developed by Glyco containing sodium hyaluronate (wound gel product).

[5] On January 30, 2023, Glyco commenced an action against Andrómaco, Montebello Packaging, and Nadro S.A.P.I.

[6] Glyco served its Statement of Claim in this Action by FedEx courier delivery of a hard copy to Andrómaco’s offices in Mexico on February 21, 2023.

[7] After Andrómaco brought this jurisdiction motion, Glyco amended its pleading to add further allegations in July 2023.

[8] The Defendant brings this jurisdiction motion to dismiss or stay Glyco’s action. It raises multiple grounds including that (a) this Court does not have jurisdiction simpliciter over the Action; (b) in the alternative, Ontario is forum non conveniens; and (c) in the further alternative, this dispute should be resolved by binding arbitration in Mexico pursuant to agreements between the parties; or in Texas pursuant to the 2016 agreement. In addition, (d) the Statement of Claim was not properly served outside Ontario.

[9] Glyco discontinued this Action against Montebello Packaging on May 16, 2023.

BACKGROUND

[10] The general nature of the past agreements between the parties that inform their business relationship background are not disputed. They are summarized as follows.

[11] In 2013, Glyco licensed Andrómaco to sell the wound gel in Mexico. The parties agreed the “2013 Exclusive Distribution Agreement” would be governed by the federal laws of Mexico with disputes resolved by arbitration in Mexico City. In June 2014, the agreement was amended to include a new version of the wound gel.

[12] In 2016, the parties agreed that Andrómaco would manufacture the wound product in Mexico, sell product on its own behalf in Mexico, and supply product to Glyco for Glyco’s distribution in markets outside Mexico. The parties agreed the “2016 Manufacturing and Supply Agreement” would be governed by laws of the State of Texas with disputes resolved in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

[13] In 2020, Andrómaco acquired European distribution rights from Glyco. The parties agreed the “2020 Europe Agreement” would be governed by Mexican law with disputes resolved by arbitration in Mexico.

[14] In December 2020, Glyco sold Andrómaco all rights to sell, market, and manufacture the wound product in Mexico.

[15] In January 2021, Glyco also assigned to Andrómaco its Mexican patent relating to wound gel technology. The parties agreed the “2020 Letter of Intent” and “2021 Assignment” would be governed by Mexican law with disputes resolved by arbitration in Mexico.

[16] In 2021, Andrómaco, Glyco and two other parties, Magna Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Gentex Pharma LLC, entered into an agreement under which Andrómaco would manufacture the wound product in Mexico and supply it to Magna for distribution in the United States. The parties agreed the “2021 United States Agreement” would be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky with disputes resolved in courts located in Jefferson County, Kentucky.

[17] Andrómaco has paid Glyco various sums pursuant to these agreements – $115,000 USD for Mexican distribution rights under the 2013 Exclusive Distribution Agreement, $57,400 USD for European distribution rights under the 2020 Europe Agreement, and $100,000 USD for all rights in Mexico under the 2020 Letter of Intent and 2021 Assignment.

[18] In 2022, Andrómaco was asked to pay for Glyco’s patent related legal fees as Glyco sought to expand into South American and Asian markets and negotiations between the parties continued.

[19] The relationship between Glyco and Andrómaco broke down in January 2023. Mr. Drizen became upset with the CEO of Andrómaco, Mr. Rubió, due to the slow pace of negotiations. Andrómaco became concerned about Mr. Drizen’s conduct. The relationship deteriorated to a point that Mr. Drizen called Mr. Rubió a “lying piece of crap” in an email that was copied to other Andrómaco employees, the principal of Magna Pharmaceuticals Inc., and counsel for both parties.

[20] On June 5, 2023, Andrómaco provided 6-month notice of non-renewal of the 2016 Manufacturing and Supply Agreement. It expired on December 15, 2023.

[21] The Plaintiff, Glyco alleges claims for breach of contract. Glyco also asserts claims for unlawful interference in contractual relations, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, and theft and misuse of Plaintiff Glyco’s intellectual proprietary and assets.

[22] Mr. Drizen later stated that the tort claims asserted against Andrómaco are fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation.

THE LAW

[23] A defendant may move under Rule 21.01(3)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194, to have an action stayed or dismissed on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the litigation.

[24] The parties agree that the legal principles to be applied in this case are those set out in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 572.

[25] There are traditional private international law bases on which the court has jurisdiction to hear a matter: One is that the defendant is present in the jurisdiction (known as presence-based jurisdiction); second, the defendant consents to the jurisdiction; third, and the focus of this application, is that there is a real and substantial connection between the subject matter of the litigation and the forum. Van Breda, at para. 79; Chevron Corp v. Yaiguaje, 2015 SCC 42, [2015] 3 S.C.R., at para. 81.

[26] To determine whether such a “real and substantial connection” exists, the plaintiff has the burden to establish one or more of four presumptive connecting factors enumerated by the Supreme Court in Van Breda, at para. 90, namely:

a) Whether the defendant is domiciled or resident in Ontario;

b) Whether the defendant carries on business in Ontario;

c) Whether a tort was committed in Ontario; and

d) Whether a contract connected with the dispute was made in Ontario.

[27] The plaintiff is also required to establish a “good arguable case” for the factual allegations that underpin the legal argument that would establish jurisdiction: Ontario (Attorney General) v. Rothmans Inc., 2013 ONCA 353, 115 O.R. (3d) 561, at para. 54, leave to appeal refused, [2013] S.C.C.A. No. 327; GlycoBioSciences Inc. v. Herrero and Associates, 2023 ONCA 331, leave to appeal refused, .

[28] Where a presumptive connecting factor is present, the party challenging the assumption of jurisdiction must establish facts which demonstrate that the presumptive connecting factor does not point to any real relationship between the subject matter of the litigation and the forum or points only to a weak relationship between them: Van Breda at para. 95.

[29] I will review the law of forum non conveniens under that heading as it is an alternative argument and not required to determine the motion.

PARTIES POSITIONS

Moving Party Defendant, Andrómaco

[30] The moving party Andrómaco submits that this Court does not have jurisdiction simpliciter because there is “no real and substantial connection” between Ontario and the subject matter of the litigation.

[31] Andrómaco is not present in Ontario, and it does not consent to the jurisdiction of the Ontario Superior Court.

[32] Regarding Glyco’s breach of contract claims, none of the agreements were created in Ontario or related to subject matter in Ontario.

[33] With respect to Glyco’s tort claims, there is no “good arguable case” that any alleged negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation is connected to Ontario. None of the elements of the alleged torts occurred in Ontario. The purported grounds for negligence and fraudulent misrepresentation are conclusory and not supported.

[34] In the alternative, this Court should decline to exercise its jurisdiction as it is forum non conveniens. The convenient forum for this dispute is Mexico because of the choice of law and venue clauses in the agreements between the parties, and the majority of relevant witnesses reside in Mexico. In the alternative, the United States is also a more convenient forum than Ontario because of the forum selection clause in the 2016 Manufacturing and Supply Agreement, which specifies that the undersigned submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of a Texas court.

[35] In the further alternative, this Court should stay this action in favour of arbitration in Mexico because the dispute falls within the scope of binding arbitration clauses agreed to between the parties. To the extent there is any dispute about whether the dispute is arbitrable, this determination should be left to the arbitral tribunal.

Plaintiff, Glyco

[36] Glyco submits that the tort of fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation was committed by Andrómaco in Ontario and therefore it has established a real and substantial connection to the province.

[37] Glyco submits that there was a long-standing business relationship that Andrómaco abruptly terminated in January 2023. Glyco claims that prior to the termination, it was given assurances by Andrómaco that were unjustly reneged on. Around this time, Glyco relied on Andrómaco to continue to fulfill the manufacturing and supply agreement and took steps for patents for other countries. Glyco claims it had established agreements in Ontario with other companies to supply wound product.

[38] Glyco argues that Andrómaco carried on business in Ontario. Glyco claims that Andrómaco was involved in a project with Gylco in Ontario with another company Robust Inc (aka Shoppal). Andrómaco manufactured and sold an anti-aging gel product to Glyco, and manufactured for and shipped that product to Shoppal. Glyco submits that this indicates that Andrómaco did business in Ontario. Glyco submits that there was no agreement covering that project.

ANALYSIS

No Connecting factor

[39] I find that none of the presumptive connecting factors exist in this case and therefore this court does not have jurisdiction.

[40] Andrómaco does not have an office, representatives carrying on business, or assets in Ontario. It is not incorporated in Ontario. Its head office and business are in Mexico.

[41] As stated in Van Breda, at para. 86, the presence of the plaintiff in the jurisdiction is not, on its own, a sufficient connecting factor.

[42] Andrómaco does not have some direct or indirect presence in the jurisdiction, accompanied by a degree of business activity that is consistent over a period of time.

[43] I find that Andrómaco does not have an actual presence in Ontario as contemplated in the case law. It does not maintain an office, regularly visit Ontario, or ordinarily conduct business in Ontario. There is no evidence of a degree of business activity in Ontario that is consistent or regular or sustained over a period of time: Van Breda, at para. 87; Chevron Corp., at para. 85; H.M.B. Holdings Ltd. v. Antigua and Barbuda, 2021 SCC 44, 462 D.L.R. (4th) 642, at paras. 38-39.

[44] Glyco’s argument is largely based on the position that Andrómaco manufactured and sent a single shipment of a product to a company called Robust Inc. (aka Shoppal) in 2019 at the request of Glyco as part of the 2016 Manufacturing and Supply Agreement. Glyco submits that this circumstance means that Andrómaco carries on business in Ontario.

[45] I do not accept that this transaction establishes a good arguable case of a presumptive connecting factor that the defendant carries on business in Ontario (or carries on business as a traditional presence-based jurisdiction.) First, on Glyco’s version, this transaction pertained to an anti-aging gel, a different product than the wound gel specifically identified in their Statement of Claim and Amended Statement of Claim. Second, this was a singular shipment at the request of Glyco to a third party, whom the defendant has no agreement or continuing business relationship with. The 2016 Manufacturing and Supply Agreement that this transaction may relate to, clearly delineates roles that the defendant is a manufacturer and supplier in Mexico, whereas the plaintiff is to distribute on their own. Despite this delivery at Glyco’s request to their distributor, there is no evidence of Andrómaco having a continuing relationship, direct or indirect with the distributor. Third, there is no evidence of Andrómaco having an ordinary, consistent, or sustained presence in Ontario. Fourth, this transaction was not part of a contract in Ontario but rather an agreement created outside of Ontario. Further, consistent with the parties’ intention to carry on business outside of Ontario, the 2016 Manufacturing and Supply agreement that Glyco claims pertains to this transaction is governed by the laws of the state of Texas under the heading “Governing Law.”

[46] Consistent with this broader theme in the parties’ overall relationship of business and contracts outside of Ontario, all of the Agreements have clauses that specify disputes are to be dealt with in forums and locations that are outside of Ontario. The Plaintiff entered into these agreements voluntarily fully aware of the dispute resolution clauses. Glyco relies on the same agreements to support their claims in the action of a long-standing business relationship. In other words, Glyco is selectively picking and choosing.

[47] Even if this transaction did establish a connecting factor, the circumstances do not point to any real connective relationship between the subject of the litigation and the forum. I find that the relationship is weak.

[48] Applying a flexible and pragmatic approach and mindful of the role of a motion’s judge not to get into fact-finding prematurely, Glyco has not established Ontario as the jurisdiction affected by the defendant's activities or where the important elements of the tort occurred. I have considered the Statement of Claim and evidence led on the motion. Rothmans Inc., at para. 54.

[49] Glyco has not made clear how the alleged fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation occurred or where the misinformation is received and acted upon or whether any of the elements required to complete the alleged tort occurred in Ontario. Beijing Hehe Fengye Investment Co Limited v. Fasken Martineau Dumoulin LLP, 2020 ONSC 934, 149 O.R. (3d) 466, at para. 59.

Forum Non Conveniens

[50] I find that even if there was a connecting factor present and this Court had jurisdiction, I would exercise discretion to stay proceedings. Another forum is better to dispose fairly and efficiently of the litigation.

[51] In Young v. Tyco International of Canada Ltd, 2008 ONCA 709, 92 O.R. (3d) 161, the Court of Appeal stated the non-exhaustive factors a judge must consider and weigh, contextually, in determining whether another forum is more appropriate:

[26] Decisions on forum non conveniens motions are exercises of judicial discretion. Typically, in exercising their discretion, motion judges consider a list of factors now well established in the case law. These factors are used to assess the connections to each forum. They include: (1) the location where the contract in dispute was signed; (2) the applicable law of the contract; (3) the location of witnesses, especially key witnesses; (4) the location where the bulk of the evidence will come from; (5) the jurisdiction in which the factual matters arose; (6) the residence or place of business of the parties; and (7) the loss of a legitimate juridical advantage. See Eastern Power Ltd. v. Azienda Communale Energia & Ambiente, [1999] O.J. No. 3275, 178 D.L.R. (4th) 409 (C.A.), at paras. 19-20; [page168] Incorporated Broadcasters Ltd. v. Canwest Global Communications Corp. (2003), 63 O.R. (3d) 431, [2003] O.J. No. 560 (C.A.), at para. 61.

[52] Other factors that a court may consider in deciding whether to apply forum non conveniens may vary depending on the context and might include the locations of parties and witnesses, the cost of transferring the case to another jurisdiction or of declining the stay, the impact of a transfer on the conduct of the litigation or on related or parallel proceedings, the possibility of conflicting judgments, problems related to the recognition and enforcement of judgments, and the relative strengths of the connections of the two parties. See Van Breda, at para. 110.

[53] In Tyco the Court of Appeal described the three principles that should guide discretion to stay proceedings because Ontario is not an appropriate forum.

[54] First, the standard is high. Before a motion judge declines jurisdiction, "the existence of a more appropriate forum must be clearly established to displace the forum selected by the plaintiff": see Amchem Products Inc. v. British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Board), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 897, at para. 33, per Sopinka J.

[55] Second, the balancing of the relevant factors should aim to achieve the twin goals of efficiency and justice. This includes fairness to the parties. Antares Shipping Corp. v. Capricorn (The), [1977] 2 S.C.R 422, at p. 448.

[56] Third, because a forum non conveniens motion typically is brought early in the proceedings, the motion judge should adopt a prudential, not an aggressive, approach to fact finding. Some matters that are not contested can be considered, whereas other factual or legal disputes should be left for trial. Tisi v. Cornell Trading Inc. (2006), 52 C.C.E.L. (3d) 152, at para. 10.

[57] In Van Breda, at para. 109, the Supreme Court stated that a court hearing an application for a stay of proceedings must find that a forum exists that is in a better position to dispose fairly and efficiently of the litigation. But the court must be mindful that jurisdiction may sometimes be established on a rather low threshold under the conflicts rules. Forum non conveniens may play an important role in identifying a forum that is clearly more appropriate for disposing of the litigation and thus ensuring fairness to the parties and a more efficient process for resolving their dispute.

[58] After considering the totality of information and relevant factors, I find that Texas court is the better and appropriate forum for the adjudication of this dispute.

[59] The relevant 2016 Manufacturing and Supply Agreement was entered into outside of Ontario. So were the other agreements that inform the background business between the parties.

[60] Texas court is the forum specifically agreed to by the parties pursuant to the “Governing Law” and forum selection clause in the 2016 Manufacturing and Supply Agreement. This Agreement states that it is governed by the laws of Texas and that the parties would submit to the “exclusive jurisdiction and venue” of the United States District Court of Western District of Texas for the determination of any question or dispute arising in connection with the agreement and waive any right to contest this exclusive jurisdiction. The interpretation of this agreement would also be relevant to Glyco’s other claims such as breach of confidence. The clause mentions that if either party contests the exclusive jurisdiction, a motion must be brought. Glyco has not brought a motion challenging the exclusive jurisdiction as contemplated in the clause.

[61] Glyco’s own position is that this dispute is connected to the 2016 Manufacturing and Supply Agreement. Mr. Drizen’s evidence is that Glyco sent its manufacturing to Andrómaco pursuant to this agreement.

[62] Third, there are no parties in Ontario except for Glyco and its representative and primary witness, Mr. Drizen. The responding evidence and witnesses will be from Mexico. Texas was contemplated and determined by the parties to be a fair location in the circumstances.

[63] Glyco submits that litigating its claim elsewhere would be cost prohibitive. However, I was not provided any particulars in support of this argument. There is no evidence before me that there would be undue material cost or delay to move the proceeding to the forum agreed to previously. The absence of evidence is concerning since Mr. Drizen has a considerable track record of litigating similar claims, motions and appeals on behalf of Glyco with respect to various companies or organizations.

[64] I find that there would be no multiplicity of proceedings or conflicting judgments if the matter was dealt with in Texas court.

[65] Alternatively, depending on the applicable agreement as it relates to the claims, all of the other agreements clearly and specifically indicate the parties agree to dispute resolution in other locations outside of Ontario such as Mexico or Kentucky. Although Glyco has not adequately situated their claims within these agreements, it is clear that any disputes that pertain to those agreements are to be dealt with outside of Ontario.

[66] I do not accept Glyco’s argument that Mexico’s justice system would not permit a fair hearing. No admissible evidence on this point was tendered. No expert evidence was sought to be admitted. Glyco submitted articles that I find it is not appropriate to take judicial notice of their contents. Glyco voluntarily agreed to this forum (and others) and now submits it is unfair without adducing admissible evidence to support that assertion.

[67] Finally, I also find that the Statement of Claim was improperly served. The Statement of Claim was not served through the Mexican Central Authority and not translated. Under Rule 17.05(3), an originating process to be served outside Ontario in a contracting state must be served: (a) through the central authority in the contracting state; or (b) in a manner that is permitted by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters.

CONCLUSION

[68] The Statement of Claim is set aside and the action against Andrómaco is stayed for lack of jurisdiction.

COSTS

[69] Based on the outcome, Andrómaco is entitled to costs.

[70] Rule 58 of the Rules of Civil Procedure sets out the factors to be considered by the court in exercising its discretion with respect to costs in accordance with s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

[71] Costs are typically payable on a partial indemnity basis. Substantial indemnity costs are generally not awarded unless the party seeking costs can persuade the court that the party against whom costs are sought has behaved in a reprehensible or egregious manner: Mortimer v. Cameron (1994), 17 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.); Davies v. Clarington (Municipality) et al., 2009 ONCA 722, 100 O.R. (3d) 66.

[72] I must determine whether the quantum of costs proposed by the applicant is excessive or within the reasonable contemplation of the unsuccessful party: Boucher v. Public Accountants Council (Ontario) (2004), 71 O.R. (3d) 291 (C.A.), at para. 38.

[73] Andrómaco seeks costs on on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $107,895.15, plus H.S.T. of $14,026.37, for a total of $121,921.55. On a partial indemnity basis, its fees are $71,930.10, plus H.S.T. of $9,350.91 for a total of $81,281.01. Its disbursements are $786.43. This bill involves four lawyers’ fees, two law students and a clerk. The hours billed are around 163.5 hours for lawyers. Plus around an additional 33 hours for law students and a clerk.

[74] Before the dismissal motion was heard, Mr. Drizen brought an apprehension of bias motion in relation to Justice Miller. Justice Mandhane dismissed the motion on November 20, 2023. At that motion, Mr. Drizen argued that a judge other than Justice Miller should determine the apprehension of bias motion. Justice Mandhane agreed with the defendants on the procedural point that the motion had to be heard before Justice Miller. Justice Mandhane also found that had she been permitted to deal with the motion, she would have dismissed it as an abuse of process because the Court of Appeal had already rejected the substantive arguments raised by Glyco in GlycoBioSciences Inc. v. Herrero and Associates, 2023 ONCA 331. That decision was released May 8, 2023. Costs for the bias hearing were reserved to the dismissal motion.

[75] The defendant’s costs outline for the bias related litigation indicate substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $17,493.42 inclusive of HST. Partial indemnity costs are sought in the amount of $11,662.28 inclusive of HST. This is for two lawyers at 17.3 hours, a law student and clerk at around 8.6 hours.

[76] The apprehension of bias position became unnecessary when this motion was scheduled before another judge.

[77] Glyco submits that the costs sought are too high. Multiple lawyers were unnecessary. Glyco submits reasonable costs are in the range of 17 to 22 thousand dollars.

[78] I find that Glyco’s conduct in relation to the apprehension of bias motion was unreasonable factoring the earlier Court of Appeal ruling and Justice Mandhane’s findings.

[79] With respect to the dismissal motion before this Court, I find that the issues were of moderate to high complexity and the record filed by the Plaintiff was voluminous, thousands of pages, containing numerous agreements, affidavits, correspondence, cross-examination transcripts etc. The business relationship in this case has a history of agreements over ten years. These combined circumstances are features that result in more legal work and higher fees.

[80] Glyco, through its representative Mr. Drizen, is an experienced litigator, albeit not a lawyer. Glyco chooses to litigate similar and other claims and does so often. Mr. Drizen acknowledged that he has litigated numerous cases for Glyco at the Superior Court, Court of Appeal and sought leave to the Supreme Court. Accordingly, he knows that costs are to be expected if he is unsuccessful. He is aware of the issues and knows that filing large records and taking unreasonable positions or steps may elevate costs.

[81] In Glycobiosciences Inc. v. Ansell Healthcare Products Inc., Court File No. 132-17 (Orangeville), McSweeney J. awarded $22,000 in costs to the defendants who successfully brought a motion to stay that action. In Glycobiosciences Inc. v. DPT Laboratories Ltd., 2019 ONSC 1877, Emery J. heard a similar motion and awarded costs to the defendant, in the amount of $17,500. In Glycobiosciences Inc. v. Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc. et. al. 2020 ONSC 2900, Shaw J. decided a similar motion against Glyco and ordered costs of $25,000 plus disbursements. In GlycoBioSciences Inc. v. Herrero and Associates, 2023 ONCA 331, the Court of Appeal awarded costs of the appeal on a substantial and indemnity basis to the respondent in the amount of $26,000 all inclusive. At paragraph 13, the Court stated:

A substantial indemnity award is warranted on this appeal for several reasons including the appellant’s reckless allegations that impugned the integrity of opposing counsel and the motion judge, the imposition of an improperly voluminous record, and the respondent’s offer to settle.

[82] In this same case, Justice Miller awarded costs of $50,000, on a partial indemnity basis.

[83] On the other hand, I find that the total costs sought by the defendant, moving party are excessive in totality. I am mindful that law students and junior lawyers can help keep costs reasonable. However, using multiple lawyers, students, and staff on a file can also elevate total hours billed and costs above a reasonable amount. Overall, the costs must be a fair and proportionate total.

[84] Overall, I find that reasonable costs for all of the litigation while factoring the conduct that I must assess, is $50,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements due in 30 days of this ruling.

MIRZA J.

Released: March 1, 2024

IN THE MATTER OF Glycobiosciences Inc v. Industria Farmaceutica et al., 2024 ONSC 7412 COURT FILE NO.: CV-23-25-00 DATE: 2024 03 01 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: GLYCOBIOSCIENCES INC., Plaintiff - and - INDUSTRIA FARMACEUTICA ANDROMACO, S.A., DE C.V. and MONTEBELLO PACKAGING and NADRO S.A.P.I. DE CV Defendant REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Mirza J. Released: March 1, 2024