Federal Court sets hearings for maritime, negligence, transportation cases

This week, hearings scheduled before the Federal Court involved matters relating to the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, the Income Tax Act, the Marine Liability Act, and the Railway Safety Act.

Federal Court

The court set Easter v. Alexander et al, T-925-19 on Apr. 29, Monday. The plaintiff wanted damages based on occupier’s liability, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, her former common law partner, repeatedly abused her sexually, physically, and psychologically between 2002–06 during his enlistment in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). The plaintiff also claimed that the CAF:

• was vicariously liable, along with the Crown, under ss. 3 and 36 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 1985
• was negligent for perpetuating a training environment and a culture conducive to intimate partner violence and gender-based discrimination
• failed to keep her safe while she lived with the defendant on base between 2004–06
• failed to investigate the violence reported to the military police

Last Apr. 10, in Easter v. Alexander, 2024 FC 567, the Federal Court dismissed the plaintiff’s motion seeking permission for her to call a particular witness at trial and to tender their expert report. But the court granted the plaintiff an order permitting the amendment of the statement of claim.

The court scheduled The Minister of National Revenue v. ASB Holdings Limited et al, T-121-24 on Apr. 30, Tuesday. The applicant asked for an order under s. 231.7 of the Income Tax Act, 1985 to compel the respondents to provide certain requested documents and information relating to the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

Last Mar. 28, in Canada (National Revenue) v. ASB Holdings Limited, 2024 FC 494, the Federal Court dismissed the respondents’ motion for leave to file a specified affidavit. The court ordered the respondents to pay the applicant their costs of the motion fixed at $44,000.

The court set Schnarr v. Markle et al, T-1860-21 on Apr. 30, Tuesday. This case arose from a collision between two pleasure crafts at Colpoy’s Bay, Ontario in August 2019.

The plaintiff requested the establishment of a limitation fund under s. 33(1)(a) of the Marine Liability Act, 2001. He argued that, without admission of liability, he was entitled to limit his accident liability to $1,000,000 plus interest under ss. 29(a), 29.1, and 32 of the legislation.

Last July 21, in Schnarr v. Markle, 2023 FC 1004, the Federal Court dismissed the motion to stay the proceedings. The court directed the parties to consult and to submit a draft order relating to the establishment of a $1,000,000 limitation fund plus interest under s. 33(5) of the legislation.

The court scheduled James v. Attorney General of Canada, T-2051-23 on May 2, Thursday. This judicial review application sought to set aside the Canada Revenue Agency’s decision, which found the applicant ineligible for the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery sickness benefit, and the Canada worker lockdown benefit based on the income requirement.

The court set Canadian National Railway Company v. Attorney General of Canada, T-2052-23 on May 2, Thursday. The applicant was served with a notice relating to alleged violations of s. 17.2 of the Railway Safety Act, 1985. This judicial review application asked the court to quash or to set aside the Transportation Appeal Tribunal’s decision.

The court scheduled Mushing v. Canada (Attorney General), T-2068-23 on May 2, Thursday. This judicial review application wanted to quash, to set aside, or to declare invalid or unlawful the Veterans Review and Appeal Board’s decision, which held that military service did not cause or aggravate the applicant’s kidney stones diagnosis.

The court set Carry the Kettle Nakoda Nation v. His Majesty the King, T-152-24 on May 3, Friday. This judicial review application challenged a decision of the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. The applicant asked for a mandamus order to require the minister to execute a settlement agreement.

The decision refused to execute the Carry the Kettle Nakoda Nation 1905 Assiniboine Surrender Claim Settlement Agreement and refused to pay the compensation allegedly owed to the applicant for a full and final settlement of a decision of the Specific Claims Tribunal.