Federal Court hears class action about alleged data breaches of online government accounts
This week, the Federal Court of Appeal heard appeals from decisions of the Social Security Tribunal. On the other hand, the Federal Court dealt with matters involving tariffs, class proceedings, alleged misconduct in the military, and permanent residence.
Last Thursday, the appellate court heard the cases of Procureur Général du Canada c. Réal Gagnon, A-278-22 and Procureur Général du Canada c. Sébastien St-Louis, A-279-22, which both challenged decisions of the Social Security Tribunal. Canada’s attorney general alleged that the tribunal’s appeal division wrongly interpreted and applied s.153.9 of the Employment Insurance Act, 1996.
Last Thursday, the court heard Ducks Lane Ltd. et al v. Outfront Media LLC et al, T-17-16. The plaintiffs – Ducks Lane Ltd, Curbex Ltd., 8314004 Canada Inc (DBA Curbex Supply), and 9003088 Canada Corp (DBA Curbex Media) – alleged trademark infringement against Outfront Media LLC, Outfront Media Canada GP Co, and Outfront Media Canada LP.
The plaintiffs filed a motion under r. 36 of the Federal Court Rules, SOR/98-106 to request an adjournment of the trial. In Ducks Lane Ltd. v. Outfront Media LLC, 2023 FC 645, the court dismissed the motion. The plaintiffs failed to establish that they would suffer unfair prejudice and that there were exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment, the court ruled.
This Wednesday, the court heard Ronsco Inc. v. His Majesty the King, T-1295-20. The plaintiff filed an action under s. 135 of the Customs Act, 1985. It wanted to quash the Canada Border Services Agency’s adjustment statements that imposed retroactive duties, taxes, and interest charges on its import of rough bore wheels from 2015 to 2018.
The plaintiff argued that the original tariff declaration might have been incorrect. In Ronsco Inc. v. Canada, 2022 FC 1029, the court partly granted the motion filed by the federal government and struck certain paragraphs of the plaintiff’s fresh as amended statement of claim without leave to amend.
Also on Wednesday, the court heard John Mark Jacques et al v. His Majesty the King, T-226-13. The plaintiffs brought a proposed national class action on behalf of individuals whose personal information was stored on an unencrypted USB key allegedly misplaced by a federal government employee in November 2012.
The plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file the affidavit of a cyber security expert. In Jacques v. Canada, 2023 FC 715, the court granted the motion, allowed the plaintiffs to file the affidavit as reply evidence on the certification motion, and permitted the federal government to file a sur-reply affidavit.
On Thursday, the court heard Kristopher Hoffman v. Attorney General of Canada, T-2674-22. The applicant, a member of the Canadian Forces, filed a motion seeking an interlocutory injunction to prohibit the Director Military Careers Administration from proceeding with the administrative review for his alleged misconduct until the resolution of three grievances and until the end of any pending related litigation.
In Hoffman v. Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 205, the court dismissed the motion. The applicant failed to satisfy the three-part conjunctive test in RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC), [1994] 1 SCR 311, the court held.
Also on Thursday, the court heard Rajandeep Kaur Benipal v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, IMM-5437-22. The applicant was an unsuccessful refugee claimant who applied for permanent residence under a temporary public policy in favor of certain refugees who worked in Canada’s healthcare sector during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In Benipal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 CanLII 58755 (FC), the court stayed the deportation of the applicant from Canada to India until the determination of the application for leave and judicial review and, if leave was granted, until the final disposition of the judicial review.
On Friday, the court heard Todd Sweet v. His Majesty the King, T-982-20. The plaintiff proposed to represent a potential class of apparently thousands of people whose online government accounts were allegedly vulnerable to hackers from around June to August 2020.
The plaintiff claimed operational failures by the federal government in properly securing the portals giving access to these accounts. In Sweet v. Canada, 2022 FC 1228, the court certified the action as a class proceeding upon finding that the case met the certification requirements.
