Federal Court of Appeal hears employment and human rights cases

This week, the Federal Court of Appeal and Federal Court dealt with matters involving pensions, permanent residence applications, the classification of imported goods for the purpose of imposing duties, and allegations of patent infringement, bias, abuse, and harassment.

Federal Court of Appeal

On Monday, the court heard Attorney General of Canada v. Sabet Ibrahim, A-269-22. A judicial review application sought to set aside a pension-related decision of the Social Security Tribunal’s Appeal Division.

The tribunal member unreasonably set aside the General Division’s decision based on a failure to apply the factors to decide the existence of a benevolent employment situation, the applicant argued. These factors were inapplicable in this context, the applicant said.

The tribunal member unreasonably concluded that a person could be incapable of regularly pursuing any substantially gainful occupation and still have a friend or family member who created a job for them or who paid them more than what the market required for their work, the applicant added.

On Wednesday, the court heard Hesameddin Abbaspour Tazehkand v. Bank of Canada, A-50-21. The appellant wanted to quash a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and to set aside the Federal Court’s dismissal of a judicial review application challenging this decision.

The Federal Court violated the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, the appeal alleged. The court wrongly found that the decision was reasonable and that one of the exhibits in the appellant’s affidavit was inadmissible, the appeal said. The Federal Court failed to give due consideration to the appellant’s issue about the bank’s conduct, the appeal added.

On Thursday, the court will keep hearing Mario Ghafari v. Attorney General of Canada, A-216-22. A complaint alleged that Canada’s chief statistician abused authority in an internal advertised appointment process for senior methodologist positions at Statistics Canada in 2017.

A panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board dismissed the complaint. A judicial review application challenged this dismissal and claimed that the panel gave reasons that were insufficiently transparent, intelligible, or justified.

Federal Court

On Monday, the court continued to hear Dan Thomas v. The Attorney General of Canada, T-791-21. The plaintiffs filed a proposed class proceeding seeking remedies for systemic discrimination, stigmatization, harassment, and abuse experienced by members of the Canadian Armed Forces with mental health disorders during their service.

On Monday, the court heard Ronsco Inc. v. His Majesty the King, T-1295-20. The plaintiff, a Canadian company manufacturing and supplying railway wheels and wheel sets, filed an action under s. 135 of the Customs Act, 1985. It wanted to quash the Canada Border Services Agency’s adjustment statements imposing retroactive duties, taxes, and interest charges on its import of rough bore wheels from 2015 to 2018.

The federal government brought a motion seeking to strike some parts of the plaintiff’s fresh as amended statement of claim. In July 2022, in Ronsco Inc. v. Canada, 2022 FC 1029, the court partly granted the motion and struck portions of certain paragraphs of the statement of claim without leave to amend.

On Tuesday, the court heard Usinage Pro-24 Inc. et al. c. 9125-6651 Québec Inc. et al., T-1481-16, which involved patent infringement allegations. The defendants filed a motion to stay the proceedings under s. 50(1) of the Federal Courts Act, 1985. The prothonotary denied this motion.

The defendants wanted to appeal. In July 2018, in Usinage Pro-24 Inc. c. 9125-6651 Québec Inc., 2018 CF 709, the Federal Court rejected this request and found no palpable and overriding errors that would justify intervention.

On Thursday, the court will keep hearing Molo Design, Ltd. v. Chanel Canada ULC et al., T-379-21. The plaintiff filed a patent infringement lawsuit relating to a “flexible wall system” against the defendants.

Last January, in Molo Design Ltd. v. Chanel Canada ULC, 2023 FC 140, the Federal Court enforced a protective order, which one of the plaintiff’s cofounders breached by revealing confidential information to its lawyers in France, Italy, Taiwan, Germany, and the U.S.

On Thursday, the court will hear the cases of Khalil Mamut et al. v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, IMM-1407-22 and S.A. et Al. v. MCI, IMM-8585-22. The applicants asked for various reliefs in connection with the processing of their permanent residence applications.

The respondent, citing the common law principle of deliberative secrecy, filed motions for the non-disclosure of certain parts of certified tribunal records produced in relation to the applications. Last Aug. 15, in Mamut v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1108, the Federal Court dismissed the motions and made the following findings:

• The decision-maker in this case was not an administrative tribunal
• The respondent failed to establish that the general rule of secrecy applied to the decision-making here
• The respondent was not entitled to withhold disclosure of the information based on the common law principle of deliberative secrecy