Costs Should Reflect the Reality of the Reality of the Demands of Litigation
AstraZeneca AB v. Apotex Inc. 2009 FC 822 (Stinson, Assessment Officer)

August 11, 2009

Y. Lynn Ing for the Applicant, AstraZeneca AB (“AstraZeneca”)
David E. Lederman for the Respondent, Apotex Inc. (“Apotex”)
John H. Sims, Q.C for the Respondent, Minister of Health

This decision involved the assessment of costs following PM(NOC) application in which the Court dismissed the application ordered costs in the middle of Column IV, Tariff B, against AstraZeneca.

In order to gauge the effort demanded by counsel and the appropriate amounts of counsel fees and disbursements in a PM(NOC) matter, the Assessment Officer read the NOA, the respective memoranda of fact and law and expert reports of the parties and the associated cross-examinations.

Generally speaking, the notion of rough justice was relied upon in light of the position taken that an assessment of costs should reflect the reality of the demands of litigation. As well, where there was a paucity of supporting evidence, conservative allowances were afforded.

Although Apotex’s bill of costs was presented at over $332,000, they were assessed and allowed at $265,386.98.

By: Mala Joshi, Ridout & Maybee LLP