Teva Neuroscience G.P.-S.E.N.C v. Canada (Attorney General)


The Patented Medicines Prices Review Board (PMPRB) made a decision that Teva’s product COPAXONE had been sold at an excessive price. The Court reviewed this decision and returned the matter to the PMPRB for redetermination, found here (the Original Decision). The hearing of the redetermination has not yet been held.

Teva brought a motion for an Order that the redetermination be made on the basis of the existing record, in light of a decision by the PMPRB to allow Board Staff to file additional evidence. Teva did not ask the Court to review the PMPRB’s decision to allow the additional evidence, but relied on Rules 397 and 399 to revise the Original Decision. The Court dismissed the motion, noting that there has been little jurisprudence considering the meaning of the word “redetermined”. The Court stated that the Original Decision ordered only that the matter be redetermined, without any further direction as to how the redetermination was to be done. Thus, the Court found that it should not supervise how the redetermination is conducted, but would conduct a judicial review of the final decision if requested by one of the parties.