Federal Court hearings involve issues of Charter rights, copyright infringement
This week, the Federal Court of Appeal is scheduled to hear matters relating to decisions of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, the Federal Court, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, and the Social Security Tribunal of Canada.
The court scheduled Diane Beaurivage c. Procureur général du Canada, A-161-23 on Monday. The applicant wanted to reverse the decision of the Social Security Tribunal of Canada’s appeal division. The decision concluded that issue estoppel was inapplicable to the case involving the legal characterization of the cellphone provided by the employer as not amounting to remuneration.
The court set Procureur général du Canada c. Gilbert Dominique (de la part des Pekuakamiulnuatsh) et al, A-95-23 on Tuesday. The appellant alleged that the Federal Court wrongly rejected the judicial review application questioning the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s decision. This matter concerned Indigenous police forces.
The court scheduled Privacy Commissioner of Canada v. Facebook, Inc., A-129-23 on Wednesday. The appellant challenged the Federal Court’s dismissal of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada’s application under s. 15(a) of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, 2000.
The court set Valérie Fortin c. Commissaire du Service Correctionnel du Canada, A-5-23 on Wednesday. This judicial review application questioned the decision of the Commission des Relations de Travail et de l’Emploi dans le Secteur Public Fédéral relating to the applicant’s staffing complaint.
The court scheduled Compagnie de Chemin de fer Canadien Pacifique c. Denis Sauvé, A-7-23 on Thursday. This appeal challenged the Federal Court’s rejection of the appellant’s request for judicial review of an arbitral decision that partially upheld the respondent’s unjust dismissal complaint under s. 240 of the Canada Labour Code, 1985.
On Monday, the court set the cases of Lynda Landry et al. c. Marie-Denise Giguère et al., T-98-22 and Stephan Landry et al c. Michel R. Bernard et al, T-922-20. This judicial review application was part of a long and costly dispute dividing the Abénakis of Wôlinak First Nation.
Last May, in Landry v. Abénakis of Wôlinak First Nation, 2023 FC 739, the Federal Court found it unfair and prejudicial to deprive the parties of their choices of counsel and dismissed the motion to disqualify Sébastien Chartrand and Larochelle Avocats from representing the interests of their client.
The court scheduled Richard Ryan v. Attorney General of Canada, T-1006-23 on Tuesday. This judicial review application sought to set aside a decision by the Parole Board of Canada’s appeal division. The division allegedly refused to exercise its jurisdiction to assess the applicant’s request for an unescorted temporary absence and breached the applicant’s right to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The court set GE Renewable Energy Canada Inc v. Canmec Industrial Inc., T-1471-21 on Tuesday. This action alleged copyright infringement. The plaintiff wanted to make further amendments to its amended statement of claim.
On Feb. 7, in GE Renewable Energy Canada Inc. v. Canmec Industrial Inc., 2024 FC 187, the Federal Court granted the plaintiff leave to make some, but not all, of the proposed amendments.
The court scheduled Catherine Bedard et al. v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police et al., T-1576-22 on Wednesday. This application requested an order of mandamus compelling the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s external review committee to render their recommendations in the applicants’ appeal files under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, 1985 and under the Commissioner’s Standing Orders (Grievances and Appeals), SOR/2014-289.
The court set Miawpukek Band (also known as Miawpukek First Nation) v. Tracy Howse, T-1299-23 on Wednesday. This application questioned an order by the Employment and Social Development Canada’s adjudicator to reinstate a former director of the applicant’s Training and Economic Development Department, subject to certain conditions.
The court scheduled Kerry Spears v. Attorney General of Canada, T-1109-23 on Wednesday. The applicant challenged a decision of the Social Security Tribunal’s general division rejecting her appeal of the Canada Employment Insurance Commission’s decision, which denied the employment insurance benefits that she requested based on misconduct.
The court set John Paul Ingarra et al v. Dye & Durham Limited et al, T-855-22 on Wednesday. The proposed representative plaintiffs asked the court to certify their action as a class proceeding. They alleged that the defendants were competitors under s. 45(8) of the Competition Act, 1985 and conspired, agreed, or arranged with each other to fix, maintain, increase, or control the price for the supply of a software platform.
On Feb. 7, in Ingarra v. Dye & Durham Limited, 2024 FC 152, the Federal Court dismissed the motion of the plaintiffs seeking approval for a third-party litigation funding agreement.
