Canada updates

Healthcare & Life Sciences

Contributed by Smart & Biggar/Fetherstonhaugh
Regulations will require hospitals to report adverse drug reactions and medical device incidents
  • Canada
  • 21 August 2019

The Regulations Amending the Food and Drug Regulations (Serious Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting – Hospitals) and Regulations Amending the Medical Devices Regulations (Medical Device Incident Reporting — Hospitals) were recently published. The amendments were enacted further to Vanessa's Law and will require all hospitals to provide specific information relating to serious adverse drug reactions and medical device incidents within 30 days of first documenting the reaction or incident in the hospital.

Federal Court of Appeal dismisses first PMNOC interlocutory appeal granted leave
  • Canada
  • 21 August 2019

Most interlocutory decisions under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) (PMNOC) Regulations are made by prothonotaries of the Federal Court. The first Federal Court of Appeal decision in an appeal of an interlocutory order under the amended PMNOC Regulations was recently issued. The court found that the prothonotary had been entitled to arrive at a view of what was best for the particular proceeding and saw no reviewable error that would justify its intervention.

Federal Court of Appeal requires PMPRB to redetermine whether patent pertains to Galderma's Differin
  • Canada
  • 14 August 2019

The Federal Court of Appeal recently granted the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board's (PMPRB's) appeal and returned to the board the matter of whether the invention of the patent at hand pertained to Galderma's Differin. The court addressed several issues, including whether the PMPRB had acted unreasonably in limiting its review of the patent to selected portions.

Court strikes Novo Nordisk's judicial review application
  • Canada
  • 14 August 2019

The Federal Court recently struck Novo Nordisk's judicial review application challenging the minster of health's decision to accept for review an abbreviated new drug submission filed by Teva Canada. In striking the application, the court concluded that Novo Nordisk had neither direct nor public interest standing in the matter.

Life sciences intellectual property: 2019 mid-year highlights
  • Canada
  • 31 July 2019

The first half of 2019 has seen a number of changes to life sciences IP and regulatory law, including the proposed amendments to the Food and Drugs Act. In addition, the Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare released its final report, which recommends that Canada implement a universal, single-payer, public pharmacare programme by enacting new legislation and proceeding in a stepwise approach to implementation.


Insurance

Contributed by Theall Group LLP
Ontario Court of Appeal: insured's failure to provide up-to-date address not breach of duty to cooperate
  • Canada
  • 02 July 2019

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently reconfirmed that an insured's duty to cooperate with defence council appointed by its insurer is not subject to a standard of perfection. This case serves as a strong reminder that a breach of the duty to cooperate must be substantial. It shows that, in practice, without real consequences arising from an insured's conduct, there can be no substantial breach of the duty to cooperate.

Coverage 'thrilla' in Manila – court finds underinsured endorsement provides worldwide coverage
  • Canada
  • 25 June 2019

A recent Alberta Court of Queen's Bench decision demonstrates that policyholders must carefully consider the interplay between an insurance policy and its endorsements. One consideration is the distinction between endorsements that provide standalone coverage and those intended only to modify an existing policy's terms. However, most important is the overarching principle that any limitations of coverage should be clearly stated.

Ontario court rejects well-established rules for interpreting insurance policy exclusions
  • Canada
  • 14 May 2019

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently concluded that insurance policies should be interpreted differently when multiple insurers are involved. This decision runs contrary to the basic rules of contractual interpretation and conflicts with well-established precedent. If followed, it could lead to commercially unreasonable results and erode the benefits of coverage available to insured parties.

Injury claim between cohabiting family covered by homeowner's policy despite household exclusion
  • Canada
  • 07 May 2019

An Ontario court recently found that a personal injury claim by a daughter against her mother was covered by homeowner's insurance. While the insurance policy contained an exclusion for claims arising from injury to "any person residing in [the] household", the court concluded that the daughter was a tenant under the policy and therefore the exclusion did not apply. This case serves as a reminder that policyholders' intentions when purchasing insurance can be critically important.


Intellectual Property

Contributed by Smart & Biggar/Fetherstonhaugh
PMPRB Steering Committee on the Modernisation of Price Review Process Guidelines releases final report
  • Canada
  • 19 August 2019

The Patented Medicines Prices Review Board (PMPRB) Steering Committee on the Modernisation of Price Review Process Guidelines recently released its final report summarising its deliberations in providing stakeholder feedback on the PMPRB's proposed new framework for the regulation of the prices of patented medicines.

Federal Court of Appeal dismisses first PMNOC interlocutory appeal granted leave
  • Canada
  • 19 August 2019

Most interlocutory decisions under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) (PMNOC) Regulations are made by prothonotaries of the Federal Court. The first Federal Court of Appeal decision in an appeal of an interlocutory order under the amended PMNOC Regulations was recently issued. The court found that the prothonotary had been entitled to arrive at a view of what was best for the particular proceeding and saw no reviewable error that would justify its intervention.

Federal Court of Appeal requires PMPRB to redetermine whether patent pertains to Galderma's Differin
  • Canada
  • 12 August 2019

The Federal Court of Appeal recently granted the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board's (PMPRB's) appeal and returned to the board the matter of whether the invention of the patent at hand pertained to Galderma's Differin. The court addressed several issues, including whether the PMPRB had acted unreasonably in limiting its review of the patent to selected portions.

Competition Bureau updates IP Enforcement Guidelines
  • Canada
  • 12 August 2019

The Competition Bureau recently released its updated IP Enforcement Guidelines. While the guidelines are technical and directed at IP and competition law practitioners, there are key aspects of the bureau's approach and various scenarios involving competition and intellectual property that could arise for consideration. As such, when issues relating to IP and competition law arise, including when deciding whether to pursue the licensing or enforcement of IP rights, legal advice should be sought.

Pampered Chef succeeds in trademark infringement battle
  • Canada
  • 05 August 2019

Pampered Chef, a world leader in the sale of premium kitchenware products, recently succeeded at trial in defending trademark infringement, passing off and dilution and depreciation of goodwill claims brought by Canada's largest retailer, Loblaws, in relation to its use of a trademark that includes the letters 'P' and 'C'. After considering all of the factors, the court dismissed all of the claims against Pampered Chef, notwithstanding the fame of Loblaws' marks and the similarities between the parties' goods.


Litigation

Reference re Environmental Management Act (British Columbia): one step forward for Trans Mountain
  • Canada
  • 09 July 2019

A recent British Columbia Court of Appeal decision is significant because it has removed (for now at least) one of the barriers to the development and construction of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project. It has also provided some clarity on the roles that the federal and provincial governments may properly play in the regulation of interprovincial pipelines and, more broadly, in the complex area of environmental regulation.

Alberta judge dismisses case against police officers on grounds of reasonable force
  • Canada
  • 02 July 2019

A Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta judge recently dismissed a case against police officers and the chief of the Edmonton Police Service in its entirety, concluding that the use of force by the defendants did not exceed what was reasonably necessary for the plaintiff's arrest. The case is significant for the court's analysis of forward-looking infrared video evidence, treatment of a prior judicial decision in related criminal proceedings and analysis of the physical force used by police officers to effect an arrest.

Throwing an egg at someone: Ontario Superior Court addresses hatching of new legal test
  • Canada
  • 25 June 2019

Imprecision in identifying the risks of driving influences how insurers assess the value of automobile insurance. A recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision reminds insurers and insured persons how difficult it can be to properly assess and categorise risk at the outset of an insurance relationship; however, it offers little guidance on how the modified causation test should be applied in future cases involving projectiles from motor vehicles.

Section B benefits require compliance with independent medical examination protocol
  • Canada
  • 18 June 2019

Can an insurer deny all Section B benefits if an insured agrees to attend an independent medical examination on conditions that conflict with the examining medical practitioner's protocol? The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench recently considered this question and answered in the affirmative. While the decision was specific to Section B claims, the broader takeaway is equally instructive: relying on the clear terms of a policy does not necessarily impugn the duty of utmost good faith.

Ontario Court of Appeal clarifies overlapping policies containing "other insurance clauses"
  • Canada
  • 11 June 2019

The Ontario Court of Appeal has clarified its application of the Supreme Court's decision in Family Insurance Corp v Lombard Canada Ltd in instances of overlapping insurance policies with "other insurance clauses" covering the same loss. The court determined that the analysis in instances of overlapping coverage comes down to whether there was overlapping coverage and whether the insurers intended to limit their obligation to contribute, and by what method and in what circumstances, in relation to the insured.