Orr Taylor LLP argues price fixing lawsuit against pharma companies in Federal Court

Edelmann & Company, Robert J. Kincaid Law Corporation before SCC this week

Orr Taylor LLP argues price fixing lawsuit against pharma companies in Federal Court

Leading pharmaceutical companies faced a class action lawsuit in the Federal Court this week over alleged anti-competition price fixing, with Orr Taylor LLP appearing in court on behalf of the representative plaintiff. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of Canada heard criminal and immigration cases this week with Edelmann & Company Law Corporation and Robert J. Kincaid Law Corporation appearing before the top court.

Federal Court

Kathryn Eaton brought a proposed class action lawsuit for damages in the amount of $2,750,000 against leading pharmaceutical companies. Eaton alleged that leading generic drug makers violated the Competition Act by conspiring to allocate the market, fix prices, and maintain the supply of generic drugs. The lawsuit stemmed from investigations conducted by the United States Department of Justice which allegedly revealed an industry-wide conspiracy among generic drug manufacturers. Included in the lawsuit that Eaton filed were generic drug manufacturers responsible for most of the generic drug sales in Canada, including Teva Canada, Actavis, Barr Pharmaceuticals, Apotex, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Pfizer Canada, and Sandoz Canada. Orr Taylor LLP represented Kathryn Eaton before the Federal Court.

Gowling WLG represented Ark Innovation Technology Inc. in a copyright infringement action against 2xM Creations Inc. Ark Innovation claimed that 2xM infringed the Fieldshare software, a premium map-based project management software, offered as a Software as a Service (SaaS) platform.

Davies Ward Philips & Vineberg LLP represented 7 Crowns Corporation in an action brought under the Income Tax Act (ITA). The corporation impugned the decision of the Minister of National Revenue refusing to agree to a reference to the Tax Court of Canada under s. 173(1) of the Income Tax Act. The cited provision states that if before an assessment is issued and it is apparent that a taxpayer and the Minister have come to different conclusions regarding a question of law, fact, or mixed law and fact, affecting the taxation of certain transactions, the ITA provides a procedure that enables the Tax Court to settle the dispute.

Lewin & Sagara LLP, Hameed Law, R-Group Legal, Emily Amirkhani and Jack Lloyd represented the plaintiffs in a simplified action brought before the Federal Court concerning the plaintiffs’ assertion of their constitutional right to access psilocybin for medicinal purposes. Their right had allegedly been interfered with by the prohibitions in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and Food and Drug Regulations.

Federal Court of Appeal

The Minister of Health issued a Notice of Compliance (NOC) to Medunik Canada for the drug Ruzurgi. The Federal Court ruled that the Minister’s decision was unreasonable. The Attorney General opposed the Federal Court’s ruling and argued that the NOC granted to Medunik did not violate the Food and Drug Regulations. Catalyst Pharmaceuticals Inc., Kye Pharmaceutical Inc., and Medunik Canada were the defendants in the action, and they were represented by Torys LLP for Catalyst and Kye, and Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP for Medunik.

Sorensen Smith LLP represented Tracy Anne Drew in her appeal of the decision by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) denying further review of her complaint about allegedly discriminatory acts committed against her by the wardens at Pacific Institution, Regional Treatment Centre, Regional Reception and Assessment Centre in Abbotsford, BC.

Rocco Galati Law Firm represented Jelisa Philips in an action against Capital One Bank and the Privacy Commissioner. The lawsuit stemmed from a request for the Privacy Commissioner to be compelled to produce material and records within its possession pursuant to Rule 317 of the Federal Court Rules. McMillan LLP acted for Capital One Bank.

Supreme Court of Canada

Ryan David Clark was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder. The central issue in the trial court was the identity of the person who had beaten the victim to death. Clark argued that the trial judge failed to address the “frailties of eyewitness evidence” in his instruction to the jury. Clark appealed his conviction to the SCC, where he was represented by Bruce Campbell and Edward Sacher of Legal Aid Saskatchewan.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration determined that Earl Mason and Seifeslam Dleiow were inadmissible to Canada on security grounds for allegedly engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives and safety of Canadians, as provided under s. 34(1)(e) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The matter was brought to the SCC, where Mason was represented by Edelmann & Company Law Corporation, and Dleiow was represented by Robert J. Kincaid Law Corporation.

 

Recent articles & video

Roundup of law firm hires, promotions, departures: February 26, 2024 update

Dickinson Wright, Pettle Law, Regency Law Group act in $10-million commercial case

Tax cases scheduled before Federal Court of Appeal this week

BC Supreme Court deals with complex property and separation agreement dispute

Federal Court criticizes immigration officer for not fully considering depth of abusive relationship

BC Supreme Court rules in favour of obstetrician in preterm birth medical negligence case

Most Read Articles

Alberta Court of King's Bench upholds tribunal decision on Calgary warehouse racking system

Redefining legal services: MT Align president Linda Beairsto on flexible work and diversity

Cross-border M&A will continue to deal with aggressive antitrust enforcement in 2024, says lawyer

Last chance to take part in the legal fees survey