Matters scheduled at federal courts this week involve human rights and intellectual property law
This week, hearings scheduled before the Supreme Court of Canada, Federal Court of Appeal, and
Federal Court related to public works, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, Canadian Navigable Waters Act, and Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.
The Supreme Court set Piekut v. His Majesty the King in Right of Canada as Represented by the Minister of National Revenue, 40782 on Nov. 5, Tuesday. The appellant in this case obtained multiple student loans from the government.
Later, she made a consumer proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, 1985 and received a certificate of full performance of this proposal. A BC court dismissed her application seeking a declaration of her release from all debt and interest associated with her loans by operation of law. She unsuccessfully appealed this decision.
The Supreme Court scheduled Government of Saskatchewan – Minister of Environment v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, et al., 40740 on Nov. 6, Wednesday. The respondents in this case filed a judicial review application challenging the environment minister’s decision granting certain mining permits.
The Saskatchewan government wanted to strike portions of the application as vexatious or abusive of the court’s process for addressing matters that previous actions already covered. The chambers judge granted the provincial government’s application. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the respondents’ appeal and reinstated the paragraphs stricken.
The Supreme Court set Sinclair, et al. v. Venezia Turismo, Venice Limousine S.R.L, Narduzzi E Solemar S.L.R., 40696 on Nov. 7, Thursday. The appellants in this case brought an action seeking damages for injuries arising from a water taxi accident that occurred in Venice, Italy.
The respondents unsuccessfully moved to dismiss or to stay the appellants’ action for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and stayed the action. The appeal court’s majority found no Ontario contract connecting the case to that province.
The Supreme Court scheduled Stevenson v. His Majesty the King, 41269 on Nov. 8, Friday. The trial judge convicted the appellant in this case of robbery and masking his face while committing an indictable offence under the Criminal Code, 1985.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal and affirmed his conviction. The appeal court’s majority saw no error in the trial judge’s application of Vetrovec v. The Queen, 1982 CanLII 20 (SCC), [1982] 1 SCR 811.
The appeal court set Attorney General of Canada v. EllisDon Corporation, A-289-23 on Nov. 7, Thursday. The respondent in this case filed a complaint concerning a solicitation issued by the Department of Public Works and Government Services for a building’s rehabilitation and optimization.
The Canadian International Trade Tribunal found the complaint valid and recommended that the department compensate the respondent. The applicant, who filed a judicial review application challenging the tribunal’s decision as unreasonable, later sought to stay this application.
Last Jan. 26, in Canada (Attorney General) v. Ellisdon Corporation, 2024 FCA 20, the appeal court dismissed the motion for a stay. The court ruled that judicial economy and the interests of justice did not support the request to stay the application.
The court scheduled Métis Nation - Saskatchewan et al. v. Canada et al., T-1739-23 on Nov. 4, Monday. The applicants in this case challenged Transport Canada’s decision to issue a permit under s. 7(6) of the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, 1985 for an outfall structure portion of the McIlvenna Bay mine project.
Last Feb. 1, in Métis Nation - Saskatchewan v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 CanLII 6425, the Federal Court dismissed a motion by Saskatchewan’s attorney general for leave to intervene in this proceeding.
The court set Château d'ivoire Stores Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada, T-556-21 on Nov. 5, Tuesday. This case arose from the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada’s issuance against the appellant of a notice of violation under s. 73.14 of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, 2000.
On Mar. 24, 2022, in Château d’Ivoire Stores Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 405, the Federal Court dismissed a motion for disclosure filed by the appellant but granted motions seeking leave to file certain submissions.
The court scheduled 7299362 Canada Inc. c.o.b. as Alexa Translations v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al., T-1188-23 on Nov. 5, Tuesday. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants’ use of ALEXA in association with translation services infringed its rights under ss. 7(b), 19, 20, and 22 of the Trademarks Act, 1985.
Last May 6, in 7299362 Canada Inc. (Alexa Translations) v. Amazon.com Inc., 2024 FC 695, the Federal Court dismissed a motion by the defendants for a bifurcation order. The defendants failed to show that this order would likely lead to a just, expeditious, and inexpensive determination of the proceeding on its merits, the court said.
The court set Attorney General of Canada v. The Canadian Human Rights Commission, T-427-23 on Nov. 5, Tuesday. This judicial review application arose from the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency’s report making findings under s. 46(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, 1985 allegedly without being procedurally fair to the respondents to the complaints.
Last Aug. 14, in Canada (Attorney General) v. Canada (Human Rights Commission), 2024 FC 1261, the Federal Court dismissed a motion by the respondent to dismiss the judicial review application for being premature.
The court scheduled Triteq Lock & Security, LLC v. Minus Forty Technologies Corp., T-205-19 on Nov. 6, Wednesday. An action alleged that the defendant infringed claims of a patent relating to a cooler lock. The plaintiff moved to compel answers to certain discovery questions.
On June 9, 2023, in Triteq Lock & Security, LLC v. Minus Forty Technologies Corp., 2023 FC 819, the Federal Court ordered the defendant to give the plaintiff answers to specified questions and access to requested samples of refrigerators or freezers with locks installed.
The court set Gemak Trust v. Jempak Corporation et al, T-1288-18 on Nov. 6, Wednesday. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant infringed claims of two patents relating to detergent compositions of encapsulated percarbonate.
Last Jan. 18, in Gemak Trust v. Jempak Corporation, 2024 FC 82, the Federal Court partly granted a motion by the defendants for an order seeking leave to file an affidavit and certain representations in connection with a motion for a bifurcation order.
