Pfizer Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2014 FCA 54
Pfizer appealed from the Federal Court ruling that under s. 8 of the PM(NOC) Regulations Apotex was entitled to claim compensation for the loss, if any, resulting from its inability to sell its Apo-azithromycin tablets before it obtained a notice of compliance after the dismissal of Pfizer’s application for a prohibition order.  In the prohibition proceedings, Pfizer had argued, unsuccessfully, that Apotex’s product infringed Pfizer’s Canadian Patent No. 1,314,876. 
Appeal is dismissed.
Pfizer questioned whether the trial judge properly applied the R. v. J.-L.J., 2000 SCC 51 case when assessing the admissibility of what Pfizer alleged were novel scientific theories put forth by Apotex’s expert. 
The Court rejected Pfizer’s argument, and held that the R. v. J.-L.J. case deals with threshold reliability, and that Apotex’s expert met this threshold since the expert was interpreting results of recognized tests relying upon his expertise for which he was tendered, on consent, as an expert. 
The Court also pointed out that Pfizer did not raise the issue of admissibility of this expert during trial even though Pfizer was given copies of the expert’s reports well in advance of the trial. 
The Court next considered Pfizer’s argument that the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error in giving weight to Apotex’s expert evidence. However, the Court found that having considered the evidentiary record before him, the trial judge’s conclusions regarding reliability and weight of Apotex expert’s testimony were open to him.