Federal Appeal

Civil Procedure

Not immutable principle of law that no costs awarded where success divided

Appeal from judgment awarding respondents costs of $45,000. Judgment disposed of application under Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (Can.), for order prohibiting appellant from selling certain drug until expiry of two patents. Application judge awarded respondents 50% of costs claimed. Appeal dismissed. Decision on costs was discretionary and would not be disturbed on appeal unless decision was based on error in principle or was plainly wrong. Where success was divided, it was not immutable principle of law that no costs would be awarded. Application judge was clearly aware of practical result of proceeding and remedies sought.

Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada Co. (Oct. 1, 2013, F.C.A., K. Sharlow J.A., Mainville J.A., and Near J.A., File No. A-74-13) 234 A.C.W.S. (3d) 560.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?