At the trial division, the innovator succeeded in a motion to amend its Notice of Application for a second time, as its initial amendments had been based on misleading information from the generic company.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the Motions Judge. If the generic company had not given the innovator erroneous information, the innovator would not have amended its original application to discontinue proceedings relating to two patents. Thus, the amendments simply place the innovator in the position in which it would have been but for the misleading information.

Furthermore, the Order extending the statutory stay was discretionary and justified on the record before the Court.

The full text of the decision can be found at: