Federal Court sets hearings for class action, patent cases, damages suits

This week, hearings scheduled before the Federal Court involved claims for general damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, aggravated damages, damages for past and future loss of income, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and costs.

Federal Court

The court set Mason Jenkins v. His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, T-1350-18 on Apr. 2, Tuesday. The plaintiff requested compensatory damages of $30,000 for alleged false imprisonment and deliberate or negligent infliction of emotional stress; compensatory damages of $30,000 for alleged breach of his right to liberty and security of the person under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; punitive damages of $20,000; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court scheduled Dr. William Imona-Russel v. Koskie Minsky LLP, T-2707-22 on Apr. 3, Wednesday. The plaintiff claimed general damages of $45,000 for alleged fraud, conflict of interest, and violation of privacy; damages of $15,000 for negligence; punitive damages of $20,000; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and costs of $400. The plaintiff also asked for damages of $20,000 for alleged violations of ss. 7, 8, 26, 27, and 28 of the Privacy Act, 1985; s. 380 of the Criminal Code, 1985; and s. 8 of the Charter.

The court set Andrew Olkowski v. The Investigations Committee, the College of Patent Agent, T-2716-22 on Apr. 3, Wednesday. This judicial review application challenged a decision of the investigations committee of the College of Patent Agents and Trademark Agents. The application argued that the committee erred in the process of the fact-finding inquiry by failing to properly defer to evidence that the applicant provided and made a palpable and overriding error in assessing the legal meaning and purpose of the power of attorney that the applicant granted to his patent agent.

The court scheduled Varley v. AGC, T-2166-18 on Apr. 4, Thursday. The plaintiffs moved to certify a class proceeding under r. 334.16 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106. They asked the court to embrace the Indigenous persons not included in the 60’s Scoop class proceedings and settlement. The 60’s Scoop cases were Riddle v Canada, 2018 FC 641 and Brown v Canada, 2018 ONSC 3429.

On June 10, 2021, in Varley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FC 589, the Federal Court certified the class action. The common issues included the following:

• Whether Canada owed a fiduciary duty or a common law duty of care to take reasonable steps to prevent all Indigenous persons, excluding Indian and Inuit persons, who were placed in the care of non-Indigenous foster or adoptive parents from losing their Indigenous identities
• Whether Canada breached these duties if it did owe such duties

The court set Juanita Wood v. Attorney General of Canada, T-2504-22 on Apr. 4, Thursday. In 2014, Yukon’s Department of Highways and Public Works terminated the applicant’s employment. She unsuccessfully brought extensive litigation relating to her termination. The Yukon Supreme Court and Yukon Court of Appeal declared her a vexatious litigant.

In July 2022, she swore five new informations in a private prosecution against Yukon’s government, Yukon’s Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board, and certain individuals. In October 2022, the director of public prosecutions stayed all five informations.

The applicant then filed the underlying judicial review application, which questioned the director’s decision. The respondent moved to strike the underlying application. The responded argued the following:

• The court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter
• The Crown prosecutor was not a federal board, commission, or other tribunal under s. 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, 1985, given that prosecutorial discretion was exercised in making the decision

In February 2023, the associate judge granted the respondent’s motion to strike and dismissed the underlying application. The applicant filed a motion seeking to appeal the associate judge’s order under s. 51(1) of the Federal Courts Rules. Last Feb. 5, in Wood v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 182, the Federal Court allowed the applicant’s appeal and set aside the associate judge’s order.

The court scheduled Jean Marc Murat v. HMK, T-1742-16 on Apr. 5, Friday. The plaintiff’s action sought general damages of $1,000,000 for negligence, negligent investigation, false imprisonment, cruel and/or unusual treatment, and/or breaches of ss. 2, 7, 9, 10, and 12 of the Charter; damages of $500,000 for past and future loss of income; special damages; aggravated damages of $500,000; punitive damages of $250,000; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court set Boehringer Ingelheim(Canada)Ltd. v. The Minister of Health, T-2108-23 on Apr. 5, Friday. This judicial review application wanted to quash the health minister’s decision granting JAMP Pharma Corporation a notice of compliance for JAMP Nintedanib 150 mg nintedanib capsules. The applicant argued that the minister erred in law and failed to consider how the issuance of the notice of compliance impacted patient safety.