Federal Court cases examine issues of trademark infringement, business licencing, Aboriginal rights
This week, the Federal Court of Canada dealt with a proposed class proceeding alleging systemic racism within the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) based on race, ethnic or national origin, colour, or religion against racialized CSC employees.
Federal Court
On Monday, the court heard Ducks Lane Ltd. et al. v. Outfront Media LLC et al., T-17-16. The plaintiffs alleged trademark infringement through the defendants’ use of a confusingly similar trademark and trade name.
The plaintiffs filed a motion under r. 36 of the Federal Court Rules, SOR/98-106. The motion requested the trial’s adjournment to December so that the expert could have additional time to develop survey evidence.
Latest News
Last May, in Ducks Lane Ltd. v. Outfront Media LLC, 2023 FC 645, the Federal Court dismissed the motion and ordered the parties to proceed with the trial as currently scheduled. The plaintiffs failed to establish unfair prejudice or the exceptional circumstances required to justify the requested adjournment, the court said.
On Wednesday, the court heard Paradis Honey Ltd. et al. v. His Majesty the King et al., T-2293-12. The certified class proceeding, filed on behalf of around 1,400 commercial beekeepers, requested damages for alleged negligence or abusive administrative action relating to the Crown’s restrictions on importing honeybees from the U.S.
The federal attorney general wanted the representative plaintiffs to file an accurate and complete affidavit of documents. The plaintiffs’ documentary production failed to comply with the Federal Courts Rules, the attorney general argued.
The plaintiffs did not produce enough relevant documentation about whether the Crown or other causes caused damages, about whether damages occurred at all, and about the quantification of the damages, the attorney general added.
In August 2018, in Paradis Honey Ltd. v. Canada (Agriculture and Agri-Food), 2018 FC 814, the Federal Court partly granted the motion. It ordered each representative plaintiff to serve a further and better affidavit of documents.
On Wednesday, the court heard Jennifer Anne Sanderson and others v. His Majesty the King, T-89-21. The proposed class action claimed that CSC’s management and staff subjected racialized persons working for or with the CSC to racist acts and negligently failed to ensure that they could work in an environment free of racism.
These issues were allegedly systemic throughout CSC’s workplaces. The plaintiffs asked for damages for infringement of their constitutional rights to equality, for physical and psychological injury, for out-of-pocket expenses, and for loss of income due to the alleged institutional racism.
On Wednesday, the court heard Trophy Lodge NWT Ltd. v. Attorney General of Canada and Parks Canada Agency, T-1225-23. A judicial review application requested mandamus directing Parks Canada Agency to issue a business licence for the Trophy Lodge in the Northwest Territories. The applicant challenged Parks Canada’s denial of its application for a licence to continue its existing business operations at its commercial fishing outpost lodge.
Parks Canada made a decision that was unenforceable, unlawful, invalid, ineffectual, exceeding its jurisdiction, and/or based on irrelevant or improper evidence, the applicant argued. Parks Canada failed to observe a principle of natural justice and procedural fairness and failed to consider the required criteria in s. 5 of the National Parks of Canada Business Regulations for deciding whether to issue a licence and under what terms, the applicant added.
On Wednesday, the court heard Thomas B Winkler v. Attorney General of Canada, T-183-22. The applicant asked for the dismissal of a charge under s. 131 of the Customs Act, 1985. The judicial review application alleged that s. 133 of the Customs Act was inapplicable because the applicant never left Canada and alleged that the Canada Border Services Agency made a false assumption.
On Friday, the court heard Peter Louis Francis et al. v. Chief and Council of Acadia First Nation et al., T-1772-22. The plaintiffs, who were commercial lobster fishers, alleged that the chief and council of Acadia First Nation breached the collective Aboriginal right to fish in a commercial fishery by vesting it in an individual, namely Kespuwick Resources Incorporated.