Cases this week in the Federal Court involve patents, pensions, disability benefits
This week, hearings scheduled before the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal involved tariffs, employment insurance, and matters concerning the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act, and the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Federal Court of Appeal
The court set Marquis et al c. PGC, A-121-23 on May 6, Monday. This application challenged a decision of the Social Security Tribunal’s appeal division. The decision found the claimants ineligible for employment insurance benefits.
The court scheduled Interpro Distributeurs De Viandes Inc. c. Président De L'ASFC, A-215-23 on May 8, Wednesday. The appellant questioned the Canadian International Trade Tribunal’s judgment classifying a chicken under a specified tariff item.
Latest News
Federal Court
The court set EMD Serono et al v. The Minister of Health, T-1369-23 on May 6, Monday. The health minister ruled that Canadian Patent No. 3,087,419 was eligible for listing on the patent register for Mavenclad as of the date of the Mar. 23, 2023 eligibility decision and ruled that Apotex Inc. did not need to address the patent because it filed its drug submission comparing its drug to Mavenclad on Mar. 22, 2023 before the eligibility decision.
The applicants sought leave to amend their notice of application. Last Apr. 9, in EMD Serono v. Canada (Health), 2024 FC 562, the Federal Court ordered the applicants to amend their notice of application since the proposed amendment had a reasonable prospect of success.
The court scheduled the cases of Preventous Collaborative Health v. Canada (Minister of Health), T-189-19; Provital Health v. Canada (Minister of Health), T-190-19; and Copeman Healthcare Centre v. Canada (Minister of Health), T-191-19 on May 7, Tuesday. The applicants moved for the disclosure of documents relevant to their applications under s. 44 of the Access to Information Act, 1985.
On Mar. 25, 2021, in Preventous Collaborative Health v. Canada (Health), 2021 FC 253, the Federal Court allowed the applicants’ appeal from the prothonotary’s dismissal of the motion. The court found r. 317 of the Federal Courts Rules, S.O.R./98-106 applicable to the de novo review under s. 44.
The court set Watkins v. The Attorney General of Canada, T-1675-23 on May 7, Tuesday. The applicant asked for benefits relating to constructive dismissal by reason of disability. This judicial review application challenged a decision relating to a request for remedial action under s. 66(4) of the Canada Pension Plan, 1985, which addressed allegedly erroneous advice that a medical adjudicator gave to the applicant.
The court scheduled Bayer Inc v. Amgen Canada Inc., T-2728-23 on May 7, Tuesday. The health minister held that that Canadian Patent No. 2,970,315 was eligible for listing on the patent register for Eylea as of the eligibility decision on Aug. 30, 2023 and held that the respondent did not need to address the patent because it filed its new drug submission on Aug. 24, 2023.
The applicant requested leave under r. 75(1) of the Federal Courts Rules to amend its notice of application. Last Apr. 9, in Bayer Inc. v. Amgen Canada Inc., 2024 FC 544, the Federal Court ordered the applicant to amend the notice of application.
The court set Suss v. His Majesty the King, T-1583-21 on May 8, Wednesday. The plaintiff alleged a breach of his rights under s.7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The defendant allegedly made an unlawful, unauthorized, and improper interception of the plaintiff’s cell phone contrary to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, 1992 and the Privacy Act, 1985.
The defendant moved to strike the plaintiff’s statement of claim. Last Jan. 26, in Suss v. Canada, 2024 FC 137, the Federal Court dismissed the plaintiff’s action and granted the defendant’s motion to strike on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action under r. 221(1)(a) of the Federal Courts Rules.
The court scheduled Brink's Incorporated et al. v. Air Canada, T-2124-23 on May 8, Wednesday. The plaintiffs claimed damages for contractual breach. They alleged that the respondent was negligent and careless because it failed to ensure that its cargo storage facilities offered acceptable and sufficient levels of security and protection and failed to offer services designed to protect high-value items.
The court set Public Service Alliance of Canada v. His Majesty the King et al., T-2487-22 on May 10, Friday. The plaintiff questioned the allegedly discriminatory and arbitrary limits on damages under the Canadian Human Rights Act, 1985. The limits allegedly created a distinction based on an enumerated or analogous ground that served to reinforce, perpetuate, and exacerbate the disadvantage of those experiencing discrimination.
Last Mar. 12, in Parkdale Community Legal Services (EGALE) v. Canada, 2024 CanLII 28282 (FC), the Federal Court dismissed Egale Canada’s motion for leave to intervene in the proceedings.