Suits challenging validity of Criminal Code regulations at Federal Court
This week, the Federal Court of Appeal dealt with intellectual property and international trade matters. On the other hand, the Federal Court heard cases involving workplace violence, patented medicines, the Marihuana Medical Access Program, and an allegedly dangerous pesticide.
On Wednesday, the court heard Dragona Carpet Supplies Mississauga Inc v. Dragona Carpet Supplies Ltd et al, A-202-22. This appeal requested compensatory damages or profits for the respondents’ alleged breach of s. 7(b) of the Trademarks Act, 1985.
The appellant wanted to stop the respondents from causing confusion in Mississauga, Ontario between the appellant’s and the respondents’ wares, services, or business, including by distributing or selling flooring products associated with the trade name or trademark DRAGONA FLOORING.
On Thursday, the court will hear Terra Reproductions Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada, A-87-23. This judicial review application sought to reverse a decision of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.
The applicant alleged that tribunal made the following errors:
On Tuesday, the court heard Friends of the Earth Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al., T-169-23. This judicial review application challenged the health minister’s decision to renew the registration of a product intended for agricultural, industrial, recreational, and forestry uses.
The applicants claimed that the decision was unreasonable and not compliant with ss. 2(2) and 7 of the Pest Control Products Act, 2002 or ss. 6, 8, and 16 of the Pest Control Products Regulations, SOR/2006-124. The Pest Management Regulatory Agency allegedly ignored measures to protect the health of Canadians and the environment from exposure to a dangerous pesticide.
Also on Tuesday, the court heard Michel Pothier c. Procureur Général du Canada, T-325-20, which arose from a workplace violence complaint against several individuals employed by Canada’s natural resources department.
The department appointed an independent investigator. The applicant challenged the investigation and asked for the disclosure of documents containing the identities of participants in the investigation.
The respondent moved for a confidentiality order under ss. 151 and 152 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106. The employer had to protect the confidentiality of investigations into workplace violence allegations, the respondent argued.
In September 2021, in Pothier v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FC 979, the Federal Court granted the motion for a confidentiality order. The disclosure of these materials, which were designated as confidential information, was prohibited, the court said.
On Wednesday, the court heard the cases of Cassandra Parker et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al., T-569-20; Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al., T-577-20; John Hipwell v. Attorney General of Canada et al., T-581-20; Michael John Doherty et al v. Attorney General of Canada et al, T-677-20; Christine Generoux et al. v. His Majesty the King et al., T-735-20; and Jennifer Eichenberg, David Bot, Leonard Walker et al. v. Attorney General of Canada, T-905-20.
Six judicial review applications challenged the validity of regulations made under s. 117.15 of the Criminal Code, 1985 to prohibit a list of previously non-restricted or restricted firearms. The Coalition for Gun Control requested leave to intervene in the proceedings to make submissions.
In September 2022, in Parker v. Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 1244, the Federal Court refused leave to intervene. The court recognized that the coalition had a genuine interest in participating in the debate and a unique perspective on the factual issues. However, the coalition failed to show how its legal arguments differed from the respondent’s, the court said.
Also on Wednesday, the court heard Janssen Inc. et al. v. Sandoz Canada Inc., T-1287-23, which arose from an action filed under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133. The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s manufacture, use, and sale of its macitentan tablets infringed certain patent claims.
The defendant moved for summary trial as part of the litigation timetable. Last Sept. 12, in Janssen Inc. v. Sandoz Canada Inc., 2023 FC 1231, the Federal Court ordered the scheduling of the motion for summary trial. It noted that case management judges had the discretion to refuse to schedule motions and declined to refuse in this case.
Also on Wednesday, the court heard True North Services LLC v. 0969582 B.C. Ltd, the Vessel "K" et al, T-1188-21. The defendant asked the court to fix the amount of bail and to approve a proposed form of a bank guarantee intended as security for the release of two vessels from arrest.
Last December, in True North Services LLC v. 0969582 B.C. Ltd, 2022 FC 1736, the Federal Court dismissed the motion for approval of the proposed form of the bank guarantee and fixed bail at $606,196.51.
On Thursday, the court will hear John Doe et al v. His Majesty the King, T-1931-13. In April 2022, in John Doe v. Canada, 2022 FC 587, the Federal Court certified as a class proceeding an action alleging that the defendant misused confidential information relating to the plaintiffs’ application to participate in the Marihuana Medical Access Program.
The court appointed representative plaintiffs for the class, which sought damages for negligence and breach of confidence, aggravated damages, punitive damages, interest, and such further relief as the court deemed just.
