Canada breached fiduciary duties by appropriating oil price difference, First Nations say
This week, the Federal Court dealt with matters commenced by parties challenging decisions made by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Canadian Industrial Relations Board, the Canada Revenue Agency, and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Federal Court
On Monday, the court heard Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation v. Fono, T-2081-17. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation employed the applicant as an auditor then terminated him without cause. He brought a complaint under the Canada Labour Code, 1985.
An adjudicator granted the applicant a 12-month-notice period and aggravated damages but refused to reinstate him. He filed an application challenging the adjudicator’s decision. Upon Canada Mortgage’s motion, a prothonotary struck certain paragraphs of his application.
The applicant appealed. In September 2019, in Fono v. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 2019 FC 1190, the Federal Court dismissed the appeal and found no error on the part of the prothonotary.
On Monday, the court heard Totten v. Teamsters Rail Conference and others, T-1263-22. An application asked for a reversal of a decision of the Canadian Industrial Relations Board. The applicant alleged false and misleading information. A union was allegedly at fault, arbitrary, and acting in bad faith.
Also on Monday, the court heard Kuka v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. This case arose from two related applications, one asking for a pre-removal risk assessment (IMM-4928-21) and the other seeking permanent residence based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds (IMM-4930-21).
An immigration officer refused the applications. In September 2021, in Kuka v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 CanLII 91073 (FC), the Federal Court granted a motion to stay the applicant’s scheduled removal to Rinas, Albania pending the determination of her application for leave and judicial review challenging the officer’s refusals.
The court made the following findings. First, the two applications raised a serious issue. Second, the evidence showed a risk of irreparable harm. The applicant allegedly risked domestic violence and injury as a target of a blood feud. Lastly, the balance of convenience lay in the applicant’s favour.
Also on Monday, the court heard Lavigne c. Procureur General du Canada, T-439-23. This arose from an application for eligibility for the Canada Emergency Recovery Benefit program. The applicant, who was self-employed, had a business selling wedding, graduation, and evening dresses.
The Canada Revenue Agency found the applicant ineligible for the benefit program. The applicant asked the court to set aside this decision and alleged that they were eligible because they met the income requirement.
On Tuesday, the court heard Chief Victor Buffalo et al v. His Majesty the King et al, T-2022-89. This arose from litigation involving oil royalties and taxes levied on oil produced on the Pigeon Lake Reserve between 1973 and 1985.
The plaintiffs, who were First Nations with interests in the reserve, alleged that Canada breached its trust and fiduciary duties when it appropriated the difference between domestic and international oil prices.
The federal government filed summary judgment motions arguing that statutory and equitable limitation periods barred the plaintiffs’ claims. In July 2015, in Samson First Nation v. Canada, 2015 FC 836, the Federal Court dismissed the claims of the plaintiffs for being statute-barred.
On Wednesday, the court heard Monsieur Tommy Baron c. Procureur General du Canada, T-1704-22. An application requested the cancellation of the three decisions of the Canada Revenue Agency. The applicant claimed that the agency erroneously held that the plaintiff failed to meet the criteria for receiving benefits from three aid programs.
On Thursday, the court will hear Louise Belisle v. Attorney General of Canada, T-926-20. The Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed a complaint alleging harassment and systemic discrimination. The applicant sought to quash or to set aside the decision. She alleged that the commission:
- was procedurally unfair
- lost or ignored evidence due to changing staff
- failed to consider obvious important evidence
- misunderstood and misconstrued facts
- approached the case with a closed mind
- inadequately accommodated her
Also on Thursday, the court will hear 7294140 Canada Inc. d.b.a. Zoomtoner v. Connexlogix Inc. et al, T-165-21. The defendants faced claims for passing off, infringement, and depreciation of goodwill relating to the plaintiff’s trademark under the Trademarks Act, 1985.
The defendants requested summary judgment dismissing the claims for lack of jurisdiction. They argued that this was a case involving the technological risk that a seller would assume when using an online marketplace or platform to sell products rather than a trademark infringement suit.
Last month, in 7294140 Canada Inc. (Zoomtoner) v. Connexlogix Inc., 2023 FC 1010, the Federal Court partly granted the motion for summary judgment. It ruled that the trial should proceed against Connex Logistics Source Inc. but summarily dismissed the claims against the other defendants.
