Cases scheduled at federal courts this week involve transportation, competition, trademark law
This week, hearings scheduled before the Supreme Court of Canada, Federal Court of Appeal, and Federal Court included matters concerning the Criminal Code, Constitution Act, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canada Transportation Act, Competition Act, and Trademarks Act.
The Supreme Court set Attorney General of Québec, et al. v. Senneville, et al., 40882 on Jan. 20, Monday. A Quebec court convicted one respondent in this case for two counts relating to possessing and accessing child pornography and set his intermittent imprisonment sentences at 90 days for possession and 90 days for access under ss. 163.1(4)(a) and (4.1)(a) of the Criminal Code.
The second respondent was convicted of two counts relating to possession and distribution of child pornography and was subject to intermittent imprisonment sentences of nine months for possession and 11 months for distribution under ss. 163.1(4)(a) and (3) of the Criminal Code.
This proceeding revolved around ss. 163.1(4)(a) and (4.1)(a) of the Criminal Code, which provided mandatory minimum sentences of 12 months’ imprisonment. The Quebec Court of Appeal’s majority declared these provisions unconstitutional under s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.
The majority ruled that these provisions violated the right against cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and lacked justification in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Charter.
The Supreme Court scheduled His Majesty the King v. Hanrahan, 41220 on Jan. 21, Tuesday. A jury found the respondent in this case not guilty of sexual assault.
On appeal, the Crown argued that the trial judge erred by restricting Crown counsel’s examination of the complainant in relation to text messages that she exchanged with the respondent after the incident. The Crown also alleged that the judge committed an error in admitting evidence about the complainant’s prior sexual history.
The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal’s majority dismissed the appeal. The majority saw no errors in the trial judge’s admission of the prior sexual history evidence, as well as in the judge’s findings that this evidence could be admissible and that an inconsistency existed between the complainant’s police statement and her evidence upon cross-examination.
The Supreme Court set Rioux v. His Majesty the King, 41362 on Jan. 22, Wednesday. The appellant in this case was charged with sexual assault committed in Bonsecours. The Crown’s evidence addressed this incident and another instance of sexual intercourse in Magog.
A judge of the Court of Québec acquitted the appellant. Regarding the Bonsecours incident, the judge found that the appellant’s version of the events raised a doubt regarding his honest but mistaken belief in the complainant’s consent.
As for the Magog incident, the trial judge could not determine that the evidence established the actus reus of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge found that the accused’s evidence pointed toward the consent of the complainant, who had no memory of the incident and who had not contradicted the accused’s evidence.
The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the Crown’s appeal and ordered a new trial in connection with the Magog incident. The appeal court found legal errors in the trial judge’s analysis of the issue of the complainant’s capacity to consent during the Magog incident.
The Supreme Court scheduled Hussein v. His Majesty the King, 41015 on Jan. 23, Thursday. After a night of heavy drinking among friends, the victim in this case suffered multiple stab wounds and died. No witnesses to the incident came forward. At a jury trial, the appellant faced a charge of second degree murder.
Defence counsel unsuccessfully applied to prevent or restrict the Crown from cross-examining the appellant on his criminal record. Thus, Crown counsel cross-examined the appellant and addressed his criminal record. The trial judge instructed the jury on how it could use this evidence. A conviction followed. The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s conviction appeal.
The appeal court set Canadian National Railway Company v. Canadian Transportation Agency, A-207-23 on Jan. 23, Thursday. The respondent in this case partly relied on a volume-related composite price index to set a revenue cap for what the appellant could charge in a crop year as a part of its business of transporting western grain.
The appellant asked the respondent to reconsider its decisions, which allegedly unduly limited what it could charge. The respondent refused to vary its decisions, which prompted an appeal under s. 41 of the Canada Transportation Act, 1996.
The appellant then moved for an order requiring the respondent to disclose certain documents under r. 317 of the Federal Courts Rules, S.O.R./98-106. On Dec. 15, 2023, in Canadian National Railway Company v. Canada (Transportation Agency), 2023 FCA 245, the Federal Court of Appeal allowed the motion and granted the requested disclosure.
The court scheduled Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha trading as Toyota Motor Corporation et al., T-627-23 on Jan. 21, Tuesday. Here, the plaintiffs allegedly learned from the Canada Border Services Agency about the detainment of a shipment of suspected counterfeit automotive parts. They claimed trademark infringement in connection with automobile parts and accessories.
In an amended statement of claim, the plaintiffs brought claims for material representations under the Competition Act, 1985. They alleged that they had not approved the manner of shipping or handling of the shipment and had not endorsed the standard or quality of the merchandise sold by the defendant.
The defendant, which was the owner and consignee of the shipment, moved to strike the plaintiffs’ entire claim without leave to amend. The defendant argued that the Trademarks Act, 1985 could not prohibit its activities, which allegedly amounted to the resale of grey goods.
Last Nov. 7, in Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha (Toyota Motor Corporation) v. Marrand Auto Inc., 2024 FC 1776, the Federal Court partly granted the motion, struck the amended statement of claim with leave to amend, and ordered the plaintiffs to serve and file a fresh as amended statement of claim within a specified time.
The court set Friends of the Earth Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al., T-169-23 on Jan. 22, Wednesday. This matter involving the Pest Control Products Act, 2002 arose from Loveland Products Canada Inc.’s product called Mad Dog Plus, which included glyphosate as an active ingredient and which was meant for agricultural, industrial, recreational, and forestry uses.
The federal health minister – via the Pest Management Regulatory Agency as delegate – decided to renew the product’s registration. The applicants requested judicial review of this decision. CropLife Canada then moved for leave to intervene in the proceeding.
Last June 4, in Friends of the Earth Canada v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 CanLII 55129 (FC), the Federal Court dismissed the motion of the proposed intervener on the basis that it failed to meet the threshold issue of usefulness and failed to show how its planned participation would assist in resolving the issues in debate.
The court scheduled Ingarra et al v. Dye & Durham Limited et al, T-855-22 on Jan. 23, Thursday. This case arose from a proposed class proceeding against the defendants, who allegedly conspired to fix, maintain, increase, or control the price for the conveyancing software supply in Canada’s real estate market under s. 45 of the Competition Act.
The plaintiffs moved for the approval of a third party litigation funding agreement. Last Feb. 7, in Ingarra v. Dye & Durham Limited, 2024 FC 152, the Federal Court dismissed the motion but permitted the plaintiffs to request the approval of another litigation funding agreement.
The court ruled that it was not in the best interests of justice to approve the current agreement, which would be unfair and unreasonable to the proposed class members and would be inappropriate for the purpose of providing access to justice.
