Cases scheduled at federal courts this week involve intellectual property law
This week, hearings scheduled before the Supreme Court of Canada, Federal Court of Appeal, and Federal Court included matters relating to the Criminal Code, the Competition Act, the Trademarks Act, and the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Act.
The Supreme Court set Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 41061 on Feb. 11–12, Tuesday to Wednesday. The parties in this case married in 1999 and had two children. The mother filed an action seeking statutory relief relating to divorce, child and spousal support, and property equalization. She also requested damages for the father’s conduct during the marriage.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the mother damages of $150,000. This amount included compensatory and aggravated damages of $100,000 for the new tort of family violence and punitive damages of $50,000.
Read next: What are the highest punitive damages awarded in Canada?
The Ontario Court of Appeal partly allowed the appeal and reduced the award by $50,000. The appeal court refused to recognize the new torts of domestic violence or coercive control as defined in this case.
The Supreme Court scheduled His Majesty the King v. Di-Paola, 40777 on Feb. 13, Thursday. This criminal law case arose from four charges relating to corruption and fraud. The respondent pleaded guilty to a charge under s. 121(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, 1985.
The Quebec Superior Court imposed a conditional sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment, with an aggravating factor being the respondent’s bestowal of advantages and benefits on the official in exchange for being awarded lucrative contracts. The Quebec Court of Appeal reduced the length of the sentence to six months.
The appeal court set Empire Company Limited et al v. Attorney General of Canada, A-192-24 on Feb. 12, Wednesday. This appeal sought to set aside a Federal Court order, which granted the respondent’s motion to strike the appellants’ application for judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of Competition.
The competition commissioner had decided to commence an inquiry against the appellants under s. 10(1)(b)(ii) of the Competition Act, 1985. The appeal alleged that the Federal Court order was wrong in law and principle.
The court scheduled the cases of Remitbee Incorporated v. Remitly, Inc., T-1758-22 and Remitbee Incorporated v. Remitly, Inc., T-2621-23 on Feb. 11, Tuesday. The applicant in this case applied for the trademark “REMITBEE” for essentially software as a service, which aimed to facilitate electronic funds transfer via mobile apps and the internet.
On the other hand, the respondent applied for the trademark “REMITLY” for mobile app software and software as a service, which sought to facilitate electronic funds transfer and related financial services. Both parties opposed the other’s trademark application.
The Trademarks Opposition Board granted the respondent’s opposition against the applicant and rejected the applicant’s opposition against the respondent. The applicant brought applications appealing the two opposition decisions under s. 56 of the Trademarks Act, 1985.
In these appeals, the respondent wanted to bring expert evidence via two affidavits. The applicant moved to strike these affidavits. Last Jan. 15, in Remitbee Incorporated v. Remitly, Inc., 2025 FC 81, the Federal Court granted the motions of the applicant and struck the affidavits.
The court set His Majesty the King v. El-Bahnasawy, T-381-24 on Feb. 12, Wednesday. Here, the respondent brought a complaint under the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Act, 2019. He asked the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency to review the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s actions in the investigation of his son.
The Director of Public Prosecutions requested permission to intervene in the proceeding. Last Aug. 15, in Canada v. El-Bahnasawy, 2024 FC 1269, the Federal Court granted the motion for leave to intervene. The court noted that the proposed intervener had worked to avoid a duplication in submissions.
The court scheduled MacKinnon et al. v. Canada (Prime Minister) et al., T-60-25 on Feb. 13, Thursday. This judicial review application challenged the Prime Minister’s decision to advise Canada’s governor general to exercise her prerogative power to prorogue the first session of parliament until Mar. 24.
The applicants moved to expedite the hearing of this application. Last Jan. 18, in MacKinnon v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 105, the Federal Court granted the motion of the applicants. The relevant timelines under the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 would be inapplicable to this application, the court said.
The court set Attorney General of Canada v. Kostic, T-1098-24 on Feb. 13, Thursday. This matter arose from the respondent’s engagement as an advisor in connection with the investment of trust funds paid to the Piikani First Nation.
The federal attorney general asked the court, via an application, to declare the respondent a vexatious litigant. The respondent moved to strike this application. Last Jan. 21, in Canada (Attorney General) v. Kostic, 2025 FC 125, the Federal Court dismissed the motion of the respondent.
The court scheduled Bernard c. Le Conseil des Abénaquis de Wôlinak et autres, T-1097-23 on Feb. 13, Thursday. The applicant in this case challenged a resolution adopted by the Abénaki of Wôlinak Council. The resolution terminated the applicant’s employment as general manager of administration.
On Dec. 22, 2023, in Bernard v. Abénaquis of Wôlinak First Nation, 2023 FC 1743, the Federal Court issued an order granting leave for the applicant to file an amended notice of application and two additional affidavits. But the court denied leave to file an amended affidavit.
The court set CCSEF et al. v. Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and Canadian Coast Guard et al., T-252-24 on Feb. 14, Friday. This judicial review application wanted to set aside the total allowable catch applicable to harvesting elver for a certain fishery season.
The present matter involved motions brought by the federal attorney general. Last Dec. 3, in Canadian Committee For a Sustainable Eel Fishery Inc. v. Canada (Fisheries, Oceans and Coast Guard), 2024 FC 1951, the Federal Court granted the motion to remove one of the applicants and partly granted the motion to strike portions of the applicants’ affidavits.
The court scheduled the cases of Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al v. Amgen Canada Inc., T-1094-23 and Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al v. Amgen Canada Inc., T-1095-23 on Feb. 14, Friday. These were proceedings brought under s. 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133.
The defendant wanted to amend its second amended statement of defence in the two proceedings. Last July 22, in Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amgen Canada Inc., 2024 FC 1137, the Federal Court issued an order partly granting and partly dismissing the defendant’s motion for leave to amend.
