Federal Court of Appeal sets labour relations and charitable tax cases this week

This week, Canada’s federal courts are dealing with cases involving employment, tax, transportation, immigration, pensions, benefits, and matters alleging fraud and patent and copyright infringement.

Federal Court of Appeal

The court set Attorney General of Canada v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, A-118-23 on Monday. A judicial review application challenged the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board’s decision relating to an employer’s alleged failure to comply with its obligation to bargain in good faith the terms of the Public Service Dental Care Plan.

The court scheduled Sakab Saudi Holding Company et al. v. AGC et al., A-17-23 on Tuesday. The appellants questioned the Federal Court’s dismissal of their motion for certain jurisdictional and procedural relief. The judge allegedly endorsed an unprecedented process in connection with an application under s. 38 of the Canada Evidence Act, 1985.

The court set Sakab Saudi Holding Company et al. v. Saad Khalid S Al Jabri et al., A-280-23 on Tuesday. The appellants challenged the Federal Court’s dismissal of their motion for a declaration that there was no privilege in a brief setting out sensitive or potentially injurious information purportedly relevant to the defence of a fraud action.

The court scheduled Audrey Hill et al. v. Garry Leslie McLean et al., A-235-23 on Tuesday. This case concerned the COVID-19 pandemic’s effect on settling the Indian Day Schools class action. The appellants questioned the dismissal of their motion for directions to allow relief from a class action claims deadline.

The court set The Prince Edward Island Potato Board v. The Minister of Agriculture et al, A-135-23 on Wednesday. The appellant alleged that the application judge wrongly interpreted s. 15(3) of the Plant Protection Act, 1990.

The court scheduled Irving Ebert et al v. His Majesty the King, A-145-23 on Thursday. The appellant claimed that the Tax Court failed to consider the relevant arguments in assessing whether to strike an assumption relating to the fair market value of donated wines.

Federal Court

The court set Nazarelys Paula Mejias Turmero v. Air Canada et al., T-1251-19 on Monday. The plaintiffs alleged that Air Canada delayed their transportation to Canada by a month and two days and made them incur expenses while stranded in Panama.

Last June, in Mejias Turmero v. Air Canada, 2023 FC 831, the Federal Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ motion under r. 51 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, which wanted to set aside a case management judge’s order that they interpreted as cutting short their time to serve and to file certain motions.

The court scheduled Maurice Carvery v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police et al, T-1828-23 on Monday. The applicant alleged systemic racism, anti-Black racism, institutional discrimination, and cronyism from the top of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, from the director general of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and from the president of the National Police Federation.

The court set Tayebe Joodaki v. HMTK as Represented by Revenue Canada Agency et al., T-1068-23 on Wednesday. This judicial review application asked the court to restore the applicant’s eligibility for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit. The applicant allegedly met the income requirement.

The court scheduled Younus Khan v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, IMM-1338-23 on Wednesday. The applicant moved to stay his scheduled removal to Bangladesh until the determination of his application for leave and judicial review of a negative pre-removal risk assessment.

Last May, in Khan v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 CanLII 36960 (FC), the Federal Court allowed the motion. The balance of convenience favoured the applicant, who met the first two branches of the test in Toth v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1988 CanLII 1420 (FCA), the court said.

The court set Willy Ngabo v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, IMM-8334-22 on Thursday. The applicant moved to stay the execution of his scheduled removal to Bujumbura, Burundi pending the determination of his application for leave and judicial review of a negative pre-removal risk assessment.

In November 2022, in Ngabo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 CanLII 106391 (FC), the Federal Court stayed the removal. The applicant showed on the balance of probabilities that he met the test for a stay, the court said.

The court scheduled Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd. et al v. Jamp Pharma Corp., T-1563-22 on Thursday. The plaintiffs’ action under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133 alleged that the defendant’s products would infringe or would induce infringement of certain claims of two Canadian patents.

Last October, in Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd. v. Jamp Pharma Corporation, 2023 FC 1414, the Federal Court granted the defendant leave to serve and to file the amended statement of defence that it proposed.

The court set Millennium Funding, Inc. et al. v. Bell Canada et al., T-1062-21 on Thursday. The plaintiffs, a group of film studios, alleged that Bell Canada’s internet service customers infringed their copyright in five films through illegal distribution.

Last May, in Millennium Funding, Inc. v. Bell Canada, 2023 FC 764, the Federal Court dismissed Bell’s appeal. Though the case management judge took a too-limited approach to the misuse of copyright defence, Bell otherwise failed to show that the judge erred, the court said.

The court scheduled Douglas Jost v. Attorney General of Canada, T-972-17 on Friday. The plaintiffs and other retirees from the Canadian Armed Forces allegedly experienced delays before receiving their pensions. The plaintiff requested certification of a class action on behalf of the retirees.

In November 2019, in Jost v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FC 1356, the Federal Court granted the certification application. The plaintiff met the requirements for certifying a class action on behalf of members of the Reserve Forces, the court said.