Federal Appeal

Civil Practice and Procedure


Particular items of costs

Column IV of Tariff B costs justified given complexity of matter, involving eight expert witnesses

Applicant’s application for order prohibiting Minister of Health from issuing Notice of Compliance (NOC) to respondent for generic version of applicant’s ointment product until expiry of patent was granted. Applicant was awarded costs in amount of $419,729.92 inclusive. Applicant was denied substantial portion of amount claimed, but Court rejected specific arguments raised by respondent in respect of additional deductions. Given complexity of this matter, involving eight expert witnesses, appropriate scale for fees was middle of Column IV of Tariff B of Federal Court Rules. Respondent appealed. Appeal dismissed. Respondent’s request that in event its appeal on merits of Federal Court’s prohibition application was successful costs award should be set aside was dismissed as its appeal was unsuccessful. Respondent’s alternative submission that even if appeal was dismissed, costs award should be reduced to deduct some or all of amounts awarded for certain fees paid to applicant’s experts was rejected. Federal Court did not make palpable and overriding error in respect of said portions of its costs award.

Teva Canada Ltd. v. Leo Pharma Inc. (2017), 2017 CarswellNat 779, 2017 FCA 51, Johanne Gauthier J.A., Yves de Montigny J.A., and Mary J.L. Gleason J.A. (F.C.A.); affirmed (2016), 2016 CarswellNat 707, 2016 CarswellNat 708, 2016 FC 107, 2016 CF 107, George R. Locke J. (F.C.).


cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Lawyers say that the federal justice minister’s response to recommendations by a House of Commons committee on how to improve legal aid in Canada is disappointing. Is more funding needed beyond what was promised in the recent federal budget?