Cases in federal courts this week include labour, administrative, and intellectual property
This coming week, hearings scheduled before the Supreme Court of Canada, Federal Court of Appeal, and Federal Court included matters relating to the Criminal Code, Labour Code, Fertilizers Act, Trademarks Act, and Competition Act.
The Supreme Court scheduled Shamar Meredith v. His Majesty the King, 41370, on Monday, March 24. The appellant was charged with first-degree murder after a fatal shooting. Before the trial, the Crown introduced a video showing prior discreditable conduct, which the trial judge admitted. The appellant moved to reconsider the ruling, but the judge dismissed the motion. The jury convicted the appellant of second-degree murder.
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, ruling that the trial judge correctly applied the legal test for admitting the video and properly instructed the jury on its use. The majority found the judge’s assessment of the video’s probative value and potential prejudice reasonable.
The Supreme Court set Amari Donawa v. His Majesty the King, 41287, on Wednesday, March 26. During a roadside stop, police found a handgun on the appellant, which was missing its magazine and ammunition. The Ontario Superior Court acquitted him, ruling that the gun was not a “firearm” under the Criminal Code because making it operational required specialized skills and hard-to-find parts.
The Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the acquittal, finding that the trial judge failed to assess the handgun’s operability based on the evidence, amounting to an error of law. The appellant was convicted of careless storage and possession of a firearm with an altered serial number, and a new trial was ordered on other counts.
The appeal court set Florence D’Allaire c. Teamsters Québec Local 1999, A-362-23, on Monday, March 24. The case arose from a Canada Industrial Relations Board decision dated September 26, 2023, which upheld a settlement agreement signed on December 14, 2022. The appellant sought judicial review to overturn the decision, cancel the settlement agreement, and hold the union accountable for allegedly failing to represent her fairly.
The appeal court set Biogénie Canada Inc. c. Agence canadienne d'inspection des aliments, A-17-24, on Wednesday, March 26. This judicial review challenged a Federal Court decision that upheld a Canadian Food Inspection Agency ruling.
The application claimed the decision wrongly upheld federal jurisdiction over fertilizer regulation, endorsed unreasonable safety standards that criminalize natural soil conditions, improperly delegated regulatory authority through Circular T-4-93, and ignored contradictory independent lab results, leading to arbitrary and unjust product seizures.
The court set Louis Vuitton Malletier et al. v. 14749138 Canada Inc. O/A Brand's Bargain E, T-320-24, on Monday, March 24. The case involved allegations of selling counterfeit Louis Vuitton merchandise. The plaintiffs claimed damages for trademark infringement, passing off, depreciation of goodwill, and false representation under the Trademarks Act. They also sought $500,000 in damages, delivery up and destruction of counterfeit goods, punitive damages, and an injunction against further infringement.
The plaintiffs alleged that despite a cease-and-desist letter on June 21, 2023, the defendants knowingly continued selling counterfeit products in stores and online. They also claimed personal liability against individual defendants Armaan Syal and Agam Kalra, alleging they acted as the corporate entity's controlling minds and knowingly engaged in infringing conduct.
The court scheduled Schlegel Health Care Inc. et al. v. Edgewood Health Network Inc., T-3222-24, on Wednesday, March 26. The plaintiffs alleged trademark infringement and unfair competition, claiming that the defendant used the term “EHN GUARDIANS” for mental health services, causing confusion with their “GUARDIANS” trademark used since 2017 for first responders’ mental health programs. They asserted violations of the Trademarks Act and Competition Act.
The plaintiffs sought injunctions to prevent further use of the mark, destruction of infringing materials, an accounting of profits, damages, punitive damages, and full indemnity costs. They argued that the defendant’s use of a similar name created public confusion.
The court set Foremost Financial Corporation v. Foremost Construction Incorporated et al., T-2299-22, for a pre-mediation call on Friday, March 28. The case involved allegations of trademark infringement and passing off related to the plaintiff’s “Foremost Financial” mark. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants’ use of similar marks like “Foremost” and “Foremost Construction” caused public confusion, violating the Trademarks Act and Competition Act.
The plaintiff sought a declaration of trademark ownership, injunctions to stop further use, damages exceeding $100,000 or an accounting of profits, punitive damages, and destruction of infringing materials. They also requested the transfer of domain names and social media accounts linked to the infringing marks.
