Federal Court of Appeal hears importation and immigration cases

Nine cases scheduled in Federal Court of Appeal this week

Federal Court of Appeal hears importation and immigration cases

This week, the Federal Court of Appeal dealt with proceedings involving matters of forgery, privacy law, customs duties, contempt of court, the potential removal of a non-citizen from Canada, and allegations of racial discrimination and retaliation by an employer.

Nine cases set before the appellate court

On Monday, the court heard Raynald Grenier c. Procureur général du Canada et al, A-284-22. This matter concerned forgery under the Criminal Code, 1985. The appellant requested an extension of time and challenged the Federal Court’s decision based on alleged legal and factual errors.

Also on Monday, the court heard Me Kenneth Gauthier c. Jérôme Bacon St-Onge et al, A-319-21. The appellant, a member of the Quebec bar, asked the appellate court to quash the lower court’s conclusions, to set aside a contempt verdict, and to annul the pronounced sentence.

On Tuesday, the court heard Darius Bossé c. Agence de la santé publique du Canada et al, A-28-23. The plaintiff questioned the denial of a motion for leave to file supplementary affidavits. The interlocutory judge wrongly found that the affidavits were irrelevant in deciding the issues at the heart of the dispute, the plaintiff argued.

Also on Tuesday, the court heard Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness v. Colin James Ewen, A-156-23. The respondent, a U.K. citizen and a Canadian resident, received criminal charges leading to a conditional discharge with an 18-month probation in Canada. He was declared inadmissible to Canada based on serious criminality.

The appellant challenged the Federal Court’s interlocutory order, which imposed an interim stay of the respondent’s removal from Canada pending receipt of the parties’ written submissions on an issue under s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

On Wednesday, the court heard Attorney General of Canada v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., A-17-22. The respondent failed to prove the applicability of the flexible computed value method under s. 53 of the Customs Act, 1985 to the value of the duties of goods that it imported, the appellant claimed.

On the same day, the court heard the related case of Attorney General of Canada v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., A-60-22. The appellant alleged that the Canadian International Trade Tribunal made the following legal errors relating to the use of the flexible computed value method:

  • failure to determine an amount for profit as s. 52(2)(b) of the Customs Act required
  • failure to consider, when determining an amount for profit and general expenses, what would be comparable sales for export to Canada
  • breach of procedural fairness by prohibiting the filing of additional expert evidence on comparable sales for export

Also on Wednesday, the court heard Marie Mache Rameau c. Le Procureur général du Canada, A-48-17. The appellant claimed that her employer discriminated against her based on her race and ethnicity, retaliated against her, and evaded stipulated obligations.

On Thursday, the court will hear Maria Reisdorf et al v. Attorney General of Canada et al, A-102-22. The appellants alleged legal and factual errors in the Canada Border Services Agency’s decision to reject their request to prohibit the importation of goods produced in Xianjiang, China unless there was clear and convincing evidence that forced labour did not wholly or partly produce the goods.

Also on Thursday, the court will hear Tamara James v. Amazon.com.ca, Inc., A-33-23. The appellant challenged the Federal Court’s dismissal of an application under s. 14 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA).

The application judge committed a legal error and breached judicial independence principles by relying on a court clerk’s gross misinterpretation of evidence about the appellant’s identity data, which led to a failure to properly analyze the evidence to determine its relevance to clause 4.9.2 of schedule 1 of the PIPEDA, the appellant alleged.

Recent articles & video

New CRA audit powers proposed in federal budget raise uncertainty, say Davies tax lawyers

Expert strategies unveiled: Tackling E.R. negligence in medical malpractice

Mergers and acquisitions in the AI space need unique due diligence considerations: Dentons lawyers

Michael Ezri appointed to Tax Court of Canada

Advocates urge Senate to pass environmental racism legislation before summer recess

Justice Lise Maisonneuve appointed to lead Future of Sport in Canada Commission

Most Read Articles

Ontario Court of Appeal upholds anesthesiologist’s liability in severe birth complications case

Petition to remove estate executor does not amount to ‘reprehensible conduct:’ BC Supreme Court

How systemizing law firm work allocation enhances diversity efforts and overcomes affinity bias

Law firm associate attrition continues to decline, NALP Foundation study shows