Federal Court tackles matters involving immigration, human rights, intellectual property
This week, the Federal Court of Appeal dealt with suits alleging bias and unfairness in a Federal Court decision and seeking employment insurance benefits. Meanwhile, hearings before the Federal Court involved allegations of trespassing and patent and industrial design infringement.
On Wednesday, the court heard R. Maxine Collins v. Attorney General of Canada, A-160-23. The appellant, a federal government whistleblower, alleged bias, unfairness, discrimination, and retaliation. She wanted to set aside the Federal Court’s decision, which disposed of her motions under rr. 51 and 210 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106.
On Monday, the court heard Jayanti Devi v Canada Revenue Agency and the Attorney General of Canada, T-1022-23. This judicial review application concerned eligibility for the Canada Recovery Benefit and the Canada Emergency Response Benefit.
On Monday, the court heard Monica Paola De Jesus Facundo et al. v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, IMM-2284-23. The applicants moved to stay the execution of their removal to Mexico scheduled for Feb. 28, 2023.
On Feb. 27, 2023, in De Jesus Facundo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 CanLII 15214 (FC), the Federal Court granted the motion to stay the execution of the applicants’ removal until the final determination of their underlying application for leave and judicial review of a pre-removal risk assessment officer’s negative decision.
On Tuesday, the court heard Zulfiqar Ali v. Office of the Information Commissioner Canada, T-479-23. This judicial review application questioned the Office of the Information Commissioner’s refusal to provide information on immigration records.
On Tuesday, the court heard Gary Curtis v. The Bank of Nova Scotia, T-208-19. This judicial review application challenged the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s refusal to investigate the applicant’s termination of employment based on allegedly discriminatory bank practices.
On Tuesday, the court heard Roshanak Orand v. Minister of Public Safety et al, T-1242-23. The applicant asked the federal justice minister to bring criminal proceedings against all individuals involved in their alleged torture.
On Tuesday, the court heard Proslide Technology, Inc. v. Whitewater West Industries, Ltd., T-1449-20. The plaintiff brought an action alleging that the defendant infringed six patents and five industrial design registrations.
Last Nov. 28, in Proslide Technology, Inc. v. Whitewater West Industries, Ltd., 2023 FC 1591, the Federal Court allowed the defendant to serve and to file by a specified date a statement of defence incorporating certain amendments.
On Thursday, the court will hear Marguerite Mary (Margaret) Buck and others v. Attorney General of Canada, T-1929-19. The plaintiffs requested declaratory relief and damages against Canada and the Enoch Cree Nation.
The plaintiffs alleged ongoing trespass to certain lands within Stony Plain Reserve No. 135, west of Edmonton. They also claimed breach of legal rights of holders of certificates of possession, breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy to commit equitable fraud, and bad faith.
On Mar. 10, 2022, in Buck v. Canada (Attorney General), 2022 CanLII 19523 (FC), the Federal Court granted the motion by the defendants to strike out without leave to amend certain paragraphs of the plaintiff’s second amended statement of claim.
On Thursday, the court will hear Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd. v. The Minister of Health et al., T-2108-23. This judicial review application challenged the health minister’s decision granting JAMP Pharma Corporation a notice of compliance for certain capsules of medicine.
