Case before Federal Court of Appeal concerns Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations
The criminal law cases set before the Supreme Court of Canada this week involve issues of causation, co-principal liability, the prospective application of legislative amendments to preliminary inquiry rules, self-defence, and intent for murder.
The court scheduled the cases of Emanuel Lozada v. His Majesty the King, 40701 and Victor Ramos v. His Majesty the King, 40709 on Tuesday. The appellants faced manslaughter charges relating to a victim stabbed in a fight. The Crown argued that the appellants were liable for manslaughter either as co-principals with or as aiders and abettors of the man who allegedly stabbed the victim. The jury found the appellants guilty.
On appeal, the appellants claimed that the trial judge erred in his jury instructions on the law of causation in relation to co-principal liability. The Ontario Court of Appeal’s majority dismissed the conviction appeals and held that the jury instructions, when read as a whole, correctly stated the law of causation, as applicable to the appellants.
The court set His Majesty the King v. Agénor, 40428 on Wednesday. The respondents faced charges for indictable offences that were punishable by a maximum of 14 years’ imprisonment in July 2019 but punishable by a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment when they were allegedly committed.
On Sept. 19, 2019, an amendment to s. 535 of the Criminal Code, 1985 abolished the right to a preliminary inquiry for an accused charged with an indictable offence punishable by less than 14 years’ imprisonment.
The respondents requested a preliminary inquiry. The Court of Québec denied these requests based on lack of jurisdiction due to the amendment. The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the respondents’ appeals and referred their cases back to the Court of Québec for a preliminary inquiry upon finding that the amendment applied prospectively.
The court scheduled Daniel Hodgson v. His Majesty the King, 40498 on Thursday. The appellant faced a second-degree murder charge for a death at a house party. The victim, who was behaving aggressively, died after the appellant used a one-armed chokehold to help remove him from the house.
The trial judge acquitted the appellant. The judge had a reasonable doubt on the issues of whether the appellant had the required intent for murder and whether the appellant was acting in self-defence. The Nunavut Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial.
The court set Bayer Inc. et al. v. BGP Pharma ULC d.b.a. Viatris Canada et al., A-283-23 on Tuesday. This case involved patents for a treatment for various eye-related disorders, which were listed on the patent register under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133.
The appellants wanted to set aside the Federal Court’s decision, which dismissed their judicial review application and upheld the health minister’s decision relating to the service of the respondent’s notice of allegation.
The court scheduled Cyril Gregory Semler v Canada Revenue Agency, T-1218-23 on Monday. This judicial review application challenged the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)’s decision advising the applicant that they were ineligible for the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) and the Canada Emergency Response Benefit.
The court set Heather Stiles v. Minister of National Revenue, T-2302-22 on Monday. The applicant questioned the reasonability of the CRA’s process in reaching its decision relating to her eligibility for the CRB.
The court set Rosana Lopez v. The Bank of Nova Scotia, T-2207-22 on Tuesday. The applicant questioned an adjudicator’s dismissal of an unjust dismissal complaint made under s. 240 of the Canada Labour Code, 1985 without awarding any remedy.
The court scheduled Adina Butu v. Attorney General of Canada, T-1312-23 on Tuesday. This judicial review application sought to overturn the decision of the Social Security Tribunal of Canada’s appeal division and requested an award of employment insurance plus applicable interest.
The court scheduled Minister of National Revenue v. Patheon Inc., T-2620-23 on Tuesday. The applicant requested an order under s. 231.7 of the Income Tax Act, 1985 to compel the respondent to provide documents and information sought from it.
The court set Adya Afshar v. Canada Revenue Agency, T-757-23 on Wednesday. This judicial review application challenged the CRA’s decision regarding excess tax-free savings account contributions for the 2020 tax year.
The court scheduled Dennis John Paul Tondreau v. The King in the Right of Canada, T-1041-23 on Wednesday. The applicant argued that his accelerated release from the Canadian Armed Forces was unreasonable and unjustified.
The court set Harvey Adams v. Canada (Minister of Transport) et al., T-947-23 on Thursday. The applicant alleged that the Transportation Appeal Tribunal failed to apply the Canadian Human Rights Act, 1985 and failed to consider the duty to accommodate to the point of due hardship.
