Cases set at Federal Court involve fishery quota, marine legal responsibility, intellectual property law
This week, hearings scheduled before the Federal Court of Appeal and the Federal Court included an excise tax case, a motion for certification, and matters involving allegations of copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and contempt of court.
Federal Court of Appeal
The appeal court set Keystone RV Company v. His Majesty the King, A-15-24 on Sept. 17, Tuesday. This appeal in an excise tax matter challenged an interlocutory order of the Tax Court of Canada. The order dismissed the appellant’s motion for judgment under s. 170.1 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure), SOR/988a, and granted the respondent’s motion to amend the reply under s. 54 of the Rules.
Federal Court
The court scheduled Berenguer v. Wow Air EHF et al., T-1517-18 on Sept. 16, Monday. In this case, a motion sought to certify an action seeking compensation for delayed flights as a class proceeding and to appoint the plaintiff as the representative on behalf of affected passengers.
Latest News
On May 3, 2021, in Berenguer v. SATA Internacional – Azores Airlines, S.A., 2021 FC 394, the Federal Court dismissed the motion for certification of the proposed class action against the defendant. The plaintiff failed to meet the criteria for certification, the court said.
The court set Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association Ltd. v. Attorney General of Canada, T-586-23 on Sept. 18, Wednesday. In this case, two associations requested leave to intervene on the ground that they could give insights on the impacts of reallocating the quota relating to a tuna fishery upon various sectors across Atlantic Canada.
Last Apr. 4, in Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association LTD. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 519, the Federal Court issued an order agreeing with an earlier decision holding that the two associations’ proposed intervention would not be useful in determining the issue in the underlying application seeking a reallocation of the quota.
The court scheduled Hudson's Bay Company ULC v. Zellers Inc. et al., T-1517-21 on Sept. 18, Wednesday. The underlying case involved alleged trademark infringement. The plaintiff asked the court to strike a statement of defence for failure to comply with an order requiring the defendants to inform the plaintiff about their availability for participation in a dispute resolution conference.
Last Mar. 6, in Bay Limited Partnership v. Zellers Inc., 2024 CanLII 20226, the Federal Court struck the statement of defence. The defendants appeared to be avoiding engaging meaningfully with the case for as long as possible to delay its progress, the court found.
The court set Seylynn (North Shore) Development Limited Partnership v. Denna Homes Group, T-1059-22 on Sept. 19, Thursday. The issue in the underlying action was the ownership of certain trademarks and trade names. The defendants to a counterclaim moved for an order to compel the plaintiff by counterclaim to serve and file an accurate and complete affidavit of documents.
Last June 26, in Seylynn (North Shore) Development Limited Partnership v. Denne Homes Group, 2024 FC 994, the Federal Court dismissed the motion. The defendants to the counterclaim failed to show that further documents actually or likely existed, the court decided.
The court scheduled Schnarr v. Markle et al., T-1860-21 on Sept. 19, Thursday. The plaintiff’s statement of claim sought the establishment of a limitation fund under the Marine Liability Act, 2001 relating to a collision between two pleasure crafts.
On July 21, 2023, in Schnarr v. Markle, 2023 FC 1004, the Federal Court refused to stay the proceedings on either an interlocutory or a permanent basis. Staying the limitation action would be unjust to the plaintiff, the court said.
The court set Bell Media Inc et al. v. Macciacchera et al, T-1257-22 on Sept. 20, Friday. The underlying dispute involved alleged copyright infringement. The plaintiffs argued that some of the defendants were in contempt of court for failing to comply with the terms of an interim order.
Last Aug. 21, in Bell Media Inc. v. Macciacchera, 2024 FC 1292, the Federal Court found these defendants guilty of contempt of court for knowingly breaching the interim order’s terms. The plaintiffs met the requisite elements to establish contempt, the court said.
The court scheduled Deeproot Green Infrastructure, LLC et al v. Greenblue Urban North America Inc., T-954-18 on Sept. 20, Friday. A previous court judgment held that the defendant infringed various claims of the plaintiffs’ patents. The plaintiffs later alleged that the defendant was in contempt of this judgment.
On May 12, 2022, in Deeproot Green Infrastructure, LLC v. Greenblue Urban North America Inc., 2022 FC 709, the Federal Court dismissed the motion for contempt. The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was in contempt. The court was unconvinced that the defendant’s RootSpace AirForm package infringed the plaintiffs’ patents.