What’s Hot on CanLII the Past Two Weeks

Here are the three most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for November 1 – 13.

1. Teva Canada Ltd. v. Pfizer Canada Inc. 2012 SCC 60

[1] This appeal involves a challenge to the validity of the patent of the Pfizer respondents (“Pfizer”) for Viagra, a drug currently on the market for treating erectile dysfunction (“ED”). The appellant, Teva Canada Limited (“Teva”), claims that Pfizer’s patent application did not meet the disclosure requirements set out in the Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4 (the “Act”). Pfizer, on the other hand, submits that it complied fully with those requirements.

[2] The main issue in this appeal is whether Pfizer failed to properly disclose its invention when it obtained the patent for Viagra. For the reasons that follow, I conclude that Pfizer’s patent application did not satisfy the disclosure requirements provided for in s. 27(3) of the Act. I would accordingly allow the appeal.

2. Moore v. British Columbia (Education) 2012 SCC 61

[1] This case is about the education of Jeffrey Moore, a child with a severe learning disability who claims that he was discriminated against because the intense remedial instruction he needed in his early school years for his dyslexia was not available in the public school system. Based on the recommendation of a school psychologist, Jeffrey’s parents enrolled him in specialized private schools in Grade 4 and paid the necessary tuition. The remedial instruction he received was successful and his reading ability improved significantly.

3. R. v. St‑Onge Lamoureux 2012 SCC 57

[1] This appeal concerns the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46 (“Cr. C.”), that deal with offences involving driving with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit. The questions raised in it relate to the right to be presumed innocent, the right to make full answer and defence and the protection against self‑incrimination (ss. 11(d), 7 and 11(c), respectively, of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms).

The most-consulted French-language decision was R. c. St‑Onge Lamoureux 2012 CSC 57

[1] Le présent pourvoi porte sur la constitutionnalité de certaines dispositions du Code criminel, L.R.C. 1985, ch. C-46 (« C. cr. »), touchant les infractions liées à la conduite automobile alors que l’alcoolémie est supérieure à la limite permise par la loi. Sont invoqués la présomption d’innocence, le droit à une défense pleine et entière et la protection contre l’auto-incrimination (respectivement l’al. 11d), l’art. 7 et l’al. 11c) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés).

Comments are closed.