We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics. If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
This was a successful motion by the defendants to dismiss the plaintiff’s action for s.8 damages following a recent decision by Hughes J. (2011 FC 1169) in which he held that the plaintiff Teva was not permitted to continue ratiopharm’s claim for s. 8 damages following their merger
In response to a motion brought by Teva for summary judgment of the issue of whether Teva can continue a s. 8 claim initially brought by ratiopharm, Justice Hughes found that this case met the criteria for being brought in a summary nature and proceeded to find that in the circumstances Teva could not pursue the s.8 action and dismissed the action
