Federal Court of Appeal sets hearings for patent and employment law cases

Proceedings scheduled before the Federal Court of Appeal involved matters relating to the Lobbying Act, the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct, the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, the Food and Drug Regulations, and the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act.

Federal Court of Appeal

The court set Democracy Watch v. Attorney General of Canada, A-181-23 on Apr. 8, Monday. This appeal questioned the dismissal of the appellant’s judicial review applications seeking to set aside two decisions of the lobbying commissioner, who found that certain lobbyists did not breach the Lobbying Act, 1985 or the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct by lobbying for a former international trade minister.

The court scheduled Abbvie Corporation et al v. Minister of Health et al, A-203-22 on Apr. 9, Tuesday. The appellants asked the court to quash the health minister’s decision finding that the respondent was not a second person under s. 5(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133 in relation to certain drug products.

The court set Janssen Inc. v. AGC et al, A-21-23 on Apr. 10, Wednesday. The appellant wanted to set aside the dismissal of its judicial review application challenging the health minister’s denial of data protection to what was allegedly an innovative drug under s. C.08.004.1 of the Food and Drug Regulations, CRC, c 870.

The court scheduled Essaï c. Banque Toronto Dominion, A-271-22 on Apr. 10, Wednesday. This request for judicial review alleged that the Canadian Industrial Relations Board’s decision, which found no constructive dismissal by the employer, was incorrect and unreasonable.

The court set Administration des Aéroports Régionaux D'Edmonton c. Thibodeau et al, A-112-22 on Apr. 11, Thursday. The appeal questioned a judgment ordering the appellant to pay the respondent damages of $5,000. The appellant alleged that the judge erred in applying the legal framework and in concluding that the damages award was an appropriate and just remedy in the circumstances.

The court scheduled St. John's International Airport Authority v. Thibodeau, A-114-22 on Apr. 11, Thursday. The appellant asked the appeal court to vacate the damages and costs awards or to reduce the costs. The Federal Court allegedly erred by treating s. 4 of the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act, 1992 as creating a mere presumption when it created a deeming rule.

The court set Walcott v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, A-165-23 on Apr. 11, Thursday. This judicial review application sought to set aside the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board’s summary dismissal of a complaint against the respondent. The applicant alleged that the decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair.

Federal Court

The court scheduled Commodore's Boats Ltd v. The Ship "Tyee Shepard" and Others, T-631-21 on Apr. 8, Monday. The plaintiff requested damages from the defendants resulting from an alleged contractual breach relating to work done for a ship. The defendant moved to amend its statement of defence and counterclaim and to compel the plaintiff to disclose additional documents.

On Nov. 7, 2023, in Commodore's Boats Ltd. v. Tyee Shepard (Ship), 2023 FC 1461, the Federal Court allowed the defendant to serve and file an amended statement of defence and counterclaim incorporating proposed amendments to specified paragraphs. The court otherwise dismissed the motion.

The court set The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness v. Dos Santos Freitas, IMM-2021-24 on Apr. 8, Monday. The applicant moved to stay an order issued by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada’s immigration division, which required the production of records of the Canada Border Services Agency and of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Last Feb. 29, in Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Dos Santos Freitas, 2024 CanLII 15489 (FC), the Federal Court found that the applicant met the applicable test and stayed the production order pending the disposition of the underlying application for leave and judicial review.

The court scheduled Taylor v. MIRC, IMM-1945-23 on Apr. 8, Monday. The applicant, whose permanent residence application was denied, filed an application for leave and judicial review and moved to stay the execution of an order requiring him to leave Canada for Jamaica on May 16, 2023.

On May 15, 2023, in Taylor v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2023 CanLII 57672 (FC), the Federal Court stayed the removal until the application’s disposition. The court found it just and equitable to issue a stay, given that the applicant met the elements of the three-part framework in Toth v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1988 CanLII 1420 (FCA) and in RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC), [1994] 1 SCR 311.

The court set Haci Setirekli v. MPSEP, IMM-5855-23 on Apr. 9, Tuesday. The applicant moved to stay his removal to Istanbul scheduled for May 14, 2023 pending the disposition of his application for leave and judicial review challenging the refusal to defer the removal.

On May 13, 2023, in Setireki v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 CanLII 42225 (FC), the Federal Court stayed the removal until the application’s disposition, given that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant. His misconduct was serious, undermined confidence in and the integrity of Canada’s immigration system, and showed a lack of respect for Canadian law, the court said. But he experienced the consequences of his misconduct, the court added.

The court scheduled The Governing Council of the University of Toronto et al. v. Easy Group Inc., T-948-22 on Apr. 9, Tuesday. The plaintiff professors alleged copyright infringement against the defendants, which offered tutoring services and packages to university students. The defendants allegedly systematically misappropriated university course materials for commercial gain.

The plaintiffs and the defendants filed motions relating to questions refused on examinations for discovery. Last Feb. 8, in Governing Council of the University of Toronto v. Easy Group Inc. (Easy Education), 2024 FC 205, the Federal Court held that questions asked during examinations for discovery regarding the defendants’ use of the university course materials were relevant.