FCA heard cases involving IP, breach of contract, labour and employment
Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP appeared before the Federal Court of Appeal this week to represent a pharmaceutical company in an intellectual property lawsuit that heads up this week’s roundup. Meanwhile, the Federal Court heard cases involving alleged infringement of Indigenous inmates’ rights, confidential lease agreements, and restricted access to controlled substances.
Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP represented Galderma Canada Inc. in a lawsuit involving the Canadian patent of its Differin 0.1 acne medicine. In the Federal Court of Appeal, Galderma appealed a motion judge’s decision to strike the affidavits filed to support the company’s patent claims. Among the affidavits that were struck was the statement of a lawyer and registered patent agent providing opinion evidence as to the scope of Galderma’s patent claims, and whether Differin 0.1 was off patent.
Shawn Patenaude Legal Prof. Corp. acted on behalf of Bezan Cattle Corporation, Barabara Bezan, and Layton Bezan in their cross-appeal of a lawsuit filed against them by the Federal Government. The controversy stemmed from an agreement signed by Barbara and Layton Bezan which allegedly made them liable, jointly and severally, for the obligation of Bezan Cattle Corporation under the Saskatchewan Farm Security Act.
Self-represented litigant, Alexandru-Ioan Burlacu, a public sector employee, appeared in court to appeal the dismissal of his grievance complaint. Burlacu argued that the Federal Court committed an error by failing to consider whether his allegations met the definition of harassment in light of the requirements of the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector.
Indigenous inmates filed a proposed class action lawsuit against the Federal Government, claiming that the use of a Custody Rating Scale (CRS) to grade inmates in the custody of the Correctional Services Canada (CSC) infringed the inmates’ right to liberty and security of the person, and their right to equality under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The CRS was introduced in 1991 and had been used to assess the inmates’ public and institutional risk. CSC employees referred to the CRS to determine the assignments of inmates to minimum, medium, and maximum-security facilities. The plaintiffs alleged that the CRS was known to overclassify Indigenous inmates, resulting in their improper confinement in maximum and medium security facilities. Gratl & Company represented the plaintiffs in the proposed class action lawsuit before the Federal Court.
Quebec-based scrap metal recycling company, American Iron & Metal sued Saint John Port Authority in New Brunswick. The company leased a facility from the port authority, which received a third-party request for a copy of its lease agreements with American Iron & Metal. The company refused to consent to the disclosure of the agreements, claiming that these agreements were prohibited from disclosure under the Access to Information Act because they contained confidential financial, commercial, and technical information. Nonetheless, the port authority expressed its intent to disclose the agreements. American Iron & Metal brought a suit in the Federal Court, where Cox & Palmer represented the scrap metal recycling company, while Steward McKelvey represented Saint John Port Authority.
Klein Lawyers LLP appeared on behalf of Reginald Percival, Allan Medrick McKay, Iona Teena McKay, and Loran Watts, who were representative plaintiffs in a proposed class proceeding against the Crown. The lawsuit concerned the establishment and management of the Boarding Home Program for Indian Students, an educational program designed to advance Canada’s policy of culturally assimilating Indigenous persons into mainstream Canadian society. The plaintiffs claimed that, as a result of the program, Indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families and Indigenous communities and placed in non-Indigenous schools, denying the children access to their language, culture, traditions, customs, and aboriginal and treaty rights and benefits.
Patients who were medically approved for the use of psilocybin or psilocin for medical purposes and healthcare professionals questioned the validity of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which allegedly interfered with the plaintiffs’ constitutional right to access psilocybin for medical purposes. Lewin & Sagara LLP, Hameed Law, R-Group Legal, Emily Amirkhani, and Jack Lloyd represented the plaintiffs in the Federal Court.
