Cases set at Federal Court this week involve election, environmental, intellectual property matters
This week, hearings scheduled before the Federal Court of Appeal and Federal Court included matters relating to the Excise Tax Act, Income Tax Act, Customs Act, Patent Act, Clean Fuel Regulations, and Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations.
The appeal court set Northbridge Commercial Insurance Corporation v. His Majesty the King, A-67-24 on Dec. 17, Tuesday. This appeal challenged a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada that dismissed appeals of reassessments. An issue in this case involved entitlement to input tax credits under the Excise Tax Act, 1985.
The appeal court scheduled The Minister of National Revenue v. Zeifmans LLP, A-260-23 on Dec. 18, Wednesday. This appeal wanted to set aside a Federal Court judgment dismissing a summary application seeking a compliance order under s. 231.7 of the Income Tax Act, 1985. This case revolved around the interpretation and application of specific tax law provisions.
The appeal court set Skechers USA Canada, Inc. v. Canada Border Services Agency, A-312-23 on Dec. 19, Thursday. This was a matter involving the Customs Act, 1985. The appeal arose when the appellant asked for administrative relief in connection with four requests made to the Canada Border Services Agency.
The court scheduled Enhance Energy v. Minister of Environment, T-2284-23 on Dec. 16, Monday. The notice of application in this case requested a review of the respondent’s refusal to allow the applicant to create provisional compliance credits under the Clean Fuel Regulations, SOR/2022-140.
The application included a request under r. 317 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 for the respondent to provide certain relevant documents not possessed by the applicant. After the respondent objected, the applicant moved to compel it to produce the documents under r. 318 of the Federal Courts Rules.
Last June 21, in Enhance Energy Inc. v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change), 2024 FC 962, the Federal Court granted the motion of the applicant. The court refused to uphold the respondent’s objection and found r. 317 applicable to the application.
The court set Mobile Telesystems Public Joint Stock Company v. Attorney General of Canada, T-1725-23 on Dec. 16, Monday. This proceeding involved a judicial review application challenging a decision to add the applicant to Schedule 1 of the Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations, SOR/2014-58, in connection with the Special Economic Measures Act, 1992.
The respondent moved to strike out the notice of application. Last Aug. 8, in Mobile Telesystems Public Joint Stock Company v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 1237, the Federal Court granted the motion of the respondent and struck out the notice of application.
The court deemed the notice of application premature, given the existence of an alternative remedy under s. 8 of the Regulations that the applicant did not pursue. The court considered this recourse adequate and effective.
The court scheduled McCain Foods Limited v. J.R. Simplot Company et al, T-1624-17 on Dec. 18, Wednesday. This matter involved the Patent Act, 1985. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants infringed its patent relating to a process for treating vegetables and fruit before cooking.
The plaintiff moved under rr. 52.5 and 279(a) of the Federal Courts Rules to strike one of the expert reports served by the defendants. On Nov. 7, 2023, in McCain Foods Limited v. J.R. Simplot Company, 2023 FC 1480, the Federal Court dismissed the motion of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff failed to persuade the court that the case management judge should strike the expert report on a pre-trial motion. The trial judge should be the one to determine the expert report’s ultimate admissibility and weight, the court explained.
The court set Garbitt v Chief Sunshine et al., T-2684-24 on Dec. 19, Thursday. Following a special meeting, a Band Council resolution removed the applicant in this case from the Council of Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation. He requested an interim injunction to halt the nomination and by-election process until the outcome of his appeal of the removal decision.
Last Oct. 15, in Garbitt v. Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation, 2024 FC 1635, the Federal Court issued an order granting a two-week interim injunction halting the by-election process. This case met the tripartite test for interim injunctive relief, the court said. A short-term injunction would permit the applicant to exercise his appeal rights relating to his removal, the court added.
