Cases scheduled in Federal Court this coming week involve tort law and professional regulation
Cases with hearings scheduled before the Federal Court this coming week include a certified class action alleging torts against Canada’s police force, a disciplinary matter, and proceedings touching upon admiralty and intellectual property law.
Federal Court
The court set Meguinis-Martin et al. v. His Majesty the King, T-778-20 on Aug. 27, Tuesday. This tort case involved a motion to certify a class proceeding relating to Indigenous persons allegedly assaulted while held in custody or detained by Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers.
The court described this proceeding as nearly identical to the one previously certified in Nasogaluak v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FC 656. While that case limited the class geographically to the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Yukon, the present case was seeking relief for Indigenous peoples throughout Canada who were excluded by the scope in the Nasogaluak class action.
On June 6, 2023, in Meguinis-Martin v. Canada, 2023 FC 771, the Federal Court certified the class action, given the federal attorney general’s consent and the compliance of the case with the criteria for certification.
The defined class included certain First Nations, Inuit, and Métis persons alleging physical or sexual assault while under arrest or in the custody or detainment of the RCMP but excluding those covered by the Nasogaluak class. The class claims in the certified action related to systemic negligence and breaches of ss. 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The court scheduled Sandhu et al. v. The College of Immigration and Citizenship, T-983-24 on Aug. 27, Tuesday. The two applicants were brothers and were licensed Canadian immigration consultants who operated a consultancy business.
They moved to stay portions of an order of the Discipline Committee of the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants pending a final decision in their judicial review application challenging the committee’s decision on a professional misconduct case.
Last May 9, in Sandhu v. College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants, 2024 FC 721, the Federal Court dismissed the motion. Though the court could accept the existence of a serious issue, it saw no irreparable harm and found that the balance of convenience favoured the regulator.
The court found this outcome just and equitable in the circumstances, including the regulator’s misconduct findings, its role and mandate, and the need to maintain public confidence in its licensing and regulatory role.
The court set the cases of Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd. et al. v. Jamp Pharma Corporation, T-2276-22 and Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd. et al. v. Jamp Pharma Corporation, T-2318-22 on Aug. 28, Wednesday. The plaintiffs brought these proceedings under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133.
The defendant moved for an order to require the plaintiffs to compel their inventor employees who were potential witnesses but not corporate representatives for discovery to attend discovery examinations under r. 237(4) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106.
On July 4, 2023, in Boehringer Ingelheim Canada Ltd. v. Jamp Pharma Corporation, 2023 FC 943, the Federal Court dismissed the motion. Neither the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations nor the Federal Courts Rules contemplated making such an order, the court held.
The court scheduled Haida Tourism Ltd Partnership v. Administrator of Ship-Source Oil Pollution, T-1374-21 on Aug. 28, Wednesday. The plantiff in this admiralty law case filed a claim seeking repayment of the costs that it incurred to remediate an oil spill pouring from its vessel.
A judge granted the defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiff’s action based on a failure to show why the defendant was liable under the law. The plaintiff appealed this order.
Last Mar. 19, in Haida Tourism Partnership (West Coast Resorts) v. Canada (Ship-Source Oil Pollution Fund), 2024 FC 439, the Federal Court allowed the appeal and permitted the plaintiff to amend its statement of claim to provide a legal basis for the defendant’s liability under s. 101 of the Marine Liability Act, 2001.
