Matters scheduled at Federal Court this week involve transportation, environmental, Indigenous law
This week, hearings scheduled before the Federal Court of Appeal and Federal Court included matters relating to intellectual property, aviation security, fisheries, greenhouse gas emissions, constitutional rights, and Indigenous law.
Federal Court of Appeal
The appeal court set Wiseau Studio, LLC v Harper et al, A-88-23 on Oct. 1, Tuesday. In the underlying claim, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants circumvented technological protection measures under s. 41.1 of the Copyright Act, 1985 relating to a documentary. The plaintiff challenged the dismissal of an appeal of a court order entirely striking the claim.
The appeal court scheduled 2474234 Ontario Inc. et al v. Dunn's Famous International Holdings Inc., A-252-23 on Oct. 2, Wednesday. This dispute involved a restaurant business and the use of its trademarks under licenses granted to third parties. The appellants challenged a decision dismissing their motion to set aside a default judgment.
Federal Court
The court set Louis Bull Band et al v. His Majesty the King, T-2439-97 on Oct. 1, Tuesday. The underlying claim concerned the surrender of a portion of the plaintiffs’ reserve in 1909. The plaintiffs alleged that the surrender was in breach of the Indian Act, 1906; was against their interests; and was for the sole purpose of accommodating white settlers.
The plaintiffs filed a motion alleging that the defendant improperly maintained refusals and failed to produce relevant documents containing information that would prejudice their claim if not received. Last Jan. 4, in Louis Bull First Nation v. Canada, 2024 FC 14, the Federal Court partly granted the motion and ordered the defendant to provide some of the information requested.
The court scheduled Universal Protection Service of Canada Corporation v. Attorney General of Canada et al., T-2744-23 on Oct. 1, Tuesday. The underlying judicial review application challenged a decision of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, which awarded five-year contracts to two airport security service providers for specified regions.
The decision did not award the applicant any contract. The applicant later served materials for an interlocutory injunction, which was eventually abandoned. A motion dealt with the cost consequences of this abandoned filing.
Last July 24, in Universal Protection Service of Canada Corporation v. Paladin Airport Security Services Ltd., 2024 FC 1170, the Federal Court ordered the applicant to pay $70,000 in costs of the withdrawn motion for an interlocutory injunction.
The court set the cases of Mombourquette v. Attorney General of Canada, T-2356-22 and Robinson v. Attorney General of Canada, T-263-23 on Oct. 1, Tuesday. These judicial review applications challenged decisions of Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s deputy minister relating to the medical substitute operator policy. The applicants alleged breaches of their rights under s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The court scheduled La Rose et al v. The King et al, T-1750-19 on Oct. 2, Wednesday. In the underlying claim, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants caused, contributed to, and permitted greenhouse gas emissions incompatible with a “stable climate system,” described as a climate capable of sustaining human life and liberties.
The defendants moved to strike the claim, which allegedly failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action. In October 2020, in La Rose v. Canada, 2020 FC 1008, the Federal Court granted the motion to strike without leave to amend.
The plaintiffs’ ss. 7 and 15 Charter claims were not justiciable and did not disclose a reasonable cause of action, the court said. The public trust doctrine, while justiciable, also disclosed no reasonable cause of action, the court added.
The court set Terrapure BR Ltd. et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al., T-2696-22 on Oct. 3, Thursday. This judicial review application sought to quash or set aside Environment and Climate Change Canada’s direction under s. 38(7.1) of the Fisheries Act, 1985.
The application alleged that the direction, which compelled the applicants to take immediate measures relating to wastewater discharges, went beyond the department’s jurisdiction under the Fisheries Act and failed to comply with the governing statutory scheme.
