Nu-Pharm Inc. v. Canada ( Attorney General )
A-130-99
Décary J.A.
15/6/99
5 pp.
Appeal from Trial Division's order ([1999] F.C.J. No. 231 (T.D.) (QL)) adding Merck Frosst as respondent to proceedings commenced by Nu-Pharm-Cullen J. allowing Nu-Pharm's application for declaration Minister's refusal to process Nu-Pharm's ANDS unlawful, referring matter back to Minister who issued notice of compliance-Subsequently Trial Division Judge granting motion to add Merck as respondent-Only Federal Court of Appeal could, arguably, once judgment on merit of case rendered by Trial Division, allow third party to be added as party for purpose of filing notice of appeal, and only in such circumstances as were described in Société des Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick Inc. et al. v. Association of Parents for Fairness in Education et al., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 549-Rr. 104(1)(b) (joinder of party), 109(1) (intervention) only invoked before division of Court before which proceeding then pending-No longer proceeding before Trial Division with respect to which Merck could be added as party or as intervener-If Merck of view Nu-Pharm had obligation under r. 303 to name Merck as party respondent, Merck's recourse to make motion in Trial Division under r. 399 to set aside decision rendered or to seek in Court of Appeal leave to be added as party for purpose of launching appeal-Federal Court Act, s. 27(2) authorizing Trial Division to extend time to appeal to Court of Appeal; not authorizing Trial Division to grant status to non-party to proceeding for purposes of seeking extension of time to file appeal-Motions Judge had no authority to allow Merck to become respondent for purpose of launching appeal in Appeal Division of Court-Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, rr. 104(1)(b), 109, 303, 399-Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, s. 27(2) (as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 7).