Federal court cases this week include matters regarding tax and death and rehabilitation benefits
This week, hearings scheduled before the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal involved Canadian Judicial Council, Canada Revenue Agency, Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board, Parole Board, Social Security Tribunal, and Veterans Affairs Canada matters.
The court set Agracity Crop et al. v. UPL NA Inc. et al, A-37-23 on May 13, Monday. In this patent case, the Federal Court fixed the respondents’ costs at $800,000. This appeal asked for the return of all sums that the appellants paid for the costs order.
The court scheduled Agracity Crop & Nutrition Ltd. v. UPL NA Inc. et al, A-248-22 on May 13, Monday. This appeal challenged an order declaring that the appellant infringed certain claims of a Canadian patent. The appellant alleged that the claims were always invalid.
The court set Yadgar v. His Majesty the King, A-201-23 on May 14, Tuesday. This appeal wanted to set aside the Tax Court of Canada’s decision, which dismissed appeals for the years 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 and confirmed the imposition of penalties under s. 163(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1985.
The court scheduled Sin Ming Ho v. His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, A-239-22 on May 14, Tuesday. This was an appeal from a Federal Court order. The appellant sought an extension of time, fresh evidence, and a copy of requested documents on an indictable criminal offence.
The court set Attorney General of Canada v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, A-118-23 on May 15, Wednesday. This judicial review application questioned the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board’s decision on the respondent’s complaint, which alleged that the employer failed to comply with its obligation to bargain in good faith the terms of the Public Service Dental Care Plan.
The court scheduled Khodykin v. Social Security Tribunal of Canada, A-269-23 on May 15, Wednesday. This judicial review application challenged the Social Security Tribunal’s decision finding the applicant ineligible for employment insurance benefits based on his failure to meet the requirement that the claimant was suspended from employment because of misconduct.
The court set Lim v Attorney General of Canada, A-41-22 on May 16, Thursday. The appellant requested a declaration that the Canadian Judicial Council could not refuse to investigate complaints from those wrongly convicted. The appellant wanted the council to pursue their complaint against the jurist who convicted them of a crime that allegedly did not occur.
The court scheduled Bell Canada et al v. Millennium Funding, Inc., et al, A-152-23 on May 16, Thursday. The respondents, who asked for approximately $400 million in statutory damages, alleged that the appellants failed to forward notices of claimed online copyright infringement under the notice regime of the Copyright Act, 1985. The appellants argued that they delivered all the proper notices and that the respondents engaged in copyright misuse.
The court set The Estate of Bennett et al v. MESDC, T-134-23 on May 13, Monday. The applicant requested the payment of Canada Pension Plan death benefits for an estate. This judicial review application challenged the Social Security Tribunal’s decision, which refused leave to appeal to the tribunal’s appeal division.
The court scheduled Galloro v. CRA, T-322-23 on May 14, Tuesday. This judicial review application challenged the Canada Revenue Agency’s decision relating to a second review under the relief provisions regarding a cancellation of tax assessed on excess tax-free savings account contributions for the 2020 tax year.
The court set Mayers v. AGC, T-1911-23 on May 14, Tuesday. The applicant was convicted of numerous criminal offences and was serving an indeterminate sentence. This judicial review application wanted to quash a decision of the Parole Board of Canada’s appeal division, which affirmed the board’s decision to conduct the applicant’s parole hearing in his absence.
The court scheduled Master Corporal (Retired) Carter v. Veterans Affairs Canada et al., T-242-23 on May 16, Thursday. This judicial review application questioned Veterans Affairs Canada’s cancellation of rehabilitation benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic.
