Federal court cases set this week involve professional regulation and intellectual property law
This week, hearings set before the Federal Court involved matters relating to the federal Radiocommunication Act, the Trademarks Act, the Canada Transportation Act, and the Air Passenger Protection Regulations.
Federal Court
The court scheduled Signature Pointe Development Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development), T-1932-23 on Aug. 12, Monday. A judicial review application challenged the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development’s decision to issue a license for a cell phone tower.
The application also questioned the City of Calgary’s decision concurring with the decision authorizing the tower. The applicant relied on the Radiocommunication Act, 1985. Some of the respondents moved to strike the notice of application. They argued that the court lacked the jurisdiction to review the challenged decisions.
Last May 27, in Signature Pointe Development Inc. v. Canada (Innovation, Science and Economic Development), 2024 CanLII 47365 (FC), the Federal Court granted the motions, entirely struck the notice of application without leave to amend, and dismissed the judicial review application.
The court found it plain and obvious that it lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the application or to grant the requested relief. Given this finding, the court ruled that it did not need to address the issue of the application’s timeliness.
The court set Vermillion Networks Inc. v. Green Circle Ideas Inc., T-609-17 on Aug. 14, Wednesday. The underlying notice of application in this trademark expungement proceeding invoked ss. 18, 55, 57, and 58 of the Trademarks Act, 1985. The respondent wanted to dismiss the application based on delay.
The respondent alleged that it could attribute the substantial delay in this proceeding to the applicant and/or its counsel. The respondent said that the court should presume prejudice after a lengthy delay and that it also suffered actual prejudice when a potential witness died in 2018.
Last Apr. 12, in Vermillion Networks Inc. v. Green Circle Ideas Inc., 2024 FC 579, the Federal Court dismissed the application. The court held that there was an undue delay of around seven years and that the applicant failed to show that this delay was excusable. The court inferred serious prejudice and concluded that the only appropriate sanction was dismissal.
The court scheduled Slave Lake Helicopters Ltd. v. The Minister of Transport, Transport Canada, T-1048-24 on Aug. 14, Wednesday. The plaintiff in this case was an air operator under the Canadian Aviation Regulations, SOR/96-433.
The plaintiff argued that the defendants, through public officers, committed the tort of misfeasance in public office, acted without lawful authority, and knowingly made invalid and unlawful decisions. The plaintiff, which allegedly incurred significant financial costs, asked for general and special damages, costs, and interest.
The court set Pakistan International Airline v. Attorney General of Canada, T-1009-24 on Aug. 15, Thursday. This judicial review application asked the court to set aside the Canadian Transportation Agency’s decision under the Canada Transportation Act, 1996 and under the Air Passenger Protection Regulations, SOR/2019-150.
The decision imposed on the applicant a total monetary penalty of $6000, consisting of compensation in the amount of $1000 each for six passengers, in relation to a change in an originally scheduled departure. The applicant argued that the monetary penalty was wrongly imposed and that the decision was procedurally unfair and unreasonable.
The court scheduled Atas v. The Attorney General of Canada et al., T-721-23 on Aug. 16, Friday. The applicant in this case filed a complaint challenging Justice David Corbett’s unfavourable rulings before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and his vexatious litigant order. Stockwoods LLP represented Corbett.
The Canadian Judicial Council summarily dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The applicant requested judicial review and moved to disqualify Corbett’s counsel based on conflict of interest. Last June 13, in Atas v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 908, the Federal Court dismissed the motion.
The applicant failed to show that the court should remove Stockwoods or its lawyers as Corbett’s counsel of record, the court said. Ordering their disqualification based on meritless theories of collusion and conspiracy would diminish public confidence in the bar and the judiciary’s integrity, the court explained.
