Federal court cases this coming week involve intellectual property and maritime law
This coming week, hearings scheduled before the Federal Court involved matters relating to the Trademarks Act, the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, the Canada Marine Act, and Quebec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
The court set LJC Apparel LLC c.o.b. Kimes Ranch v. 9277-3068 Quebec Incorporated et al, T-1522-21 on July 15, Monday. Here, the plaintiff brought an action for passing off under s. 7(b) of the Trademarks Act, 1985 and trademark infringement and depreciation of the value of the trademarks’ goodwill under ss. 20 and 22 of the legislation.
The defendants’ statement of defence and counterclaim included claims for damage to reputation, interference with the peaceful enjoyment of property, and moral prejudice under Quebec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
The defendants filed two motions. First was a motion under r. 51 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98/106 to appeal a case management judge’s order striking the defendants’ counterclaim under r. 221(1)(a).
Second was a r. 398 motion to stay the order pending the appeal. Last May 8, in LJC Apparel LLC (Kimes Ranch) v. 9277-3068 Québec Inc., 2024 FC 707, the Federal Court dismissed both motions of the defendants.
The court scheduled Pacific Coast Terminals Co. Ltd. et al. v. Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, T-2256-22 on July 15, Monday. Here, a judicial review application challenged the respondent’s decision establishing fees payable relating to the Gateway Infrastructure Fee 2022 under s. 49 of the Canada Marine Act, 1998.
The applicant made a broad request under r. 317 of the Federal Courts Rules. The applicant moved for the production of documents that were in the respondent’s possession but were not before its board of directors when it reached its decision.
Last Jan. 24, in Pacific Coast Terminals Co. Ltd. v. Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, 2024 FC 119, the Federal Court partly granted the applicant’s motion except in relation to certain documents that it found irrelevant and a document protected by deliberative privilege.
The court set A.B., Fowler, Robillard v. Attorney General of Canada, T-2158-16 on July 16, Tuesday. Here, a proposed class proceeding alleged racial discrimination and racial harassment within the Canadian Armed Forces. The parties agreed to the terms of a proposed settlement.
The parties brought a motion seeking court approval of a notice plan to communicate the proposed settlement’s terms to those falling within the proposed class definition. Last Apr. 2, in Frenette v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 505, the Federal Court granted the motion on the terms that the parties requested.
The court scheduled Pharmascience Inc. v. Janssen Inc. et al., T-732-22 on July 17, Wednesday. Here, the defendants filed an action under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133 for patent infringement in connection with a drug for prostate cancer treatment. The plaintiff asked for damages for profits lost due to this unsuccessful action.
A case management judge issued an order compelling the plaintiff to produce certain financial statements relating to a question that was refused during the discovery phase. The plaintiff appealed under r. 51 of the Federal Courts Rules.
Last Mar. 19, in Pharmascience Inc. v. Janssen Inc., 2024 FC 440, the Federal Court dismissed the r. 51 appeal brought by the plaintiff. The plaintiff failed to show that the case management judge committed a reviewable error in ordering the production of the financial statements, the court said.
The court set Meridian Manufacturing Inc. v. Concept Industries Ltd., T-1506-20 on July 17, Wednesday. Here, the plaintiff’s action claimed that the defendant infringed a patent relating to a hopper bottom for supporting a storage bin.
Both parties filed discovery motions. Last Apr. 22, in Meridian Manufacturing Inc. v. Concept Industries Ltd., 2024 FC 604, the Federal Court partly granted the plaintiff’s motion and dismissed the remaining issues outstanding on the defendant’s motion.
The court scheduled Collins v. Attorney General of Canada et al, T-2044-19 on July 19, Friday. The class in this certified class action consisted of those with applications for membership in the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation that were rejected in accordance with a supplemental agreement.
An appeal under r. 51 of the Federal Courts Rules questioned the denial of the plaintiff's motion to compel the defendant to answer certain questions that were refused. Last Apr. 25, in Collins v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 636, the Federal Court dismissed the r. 51 motion of the plaintiff.
