Cases set at Federal Court this week involve an employment condition, voting, damages
This week, hearings set before the Federal Court of Appeal and the Federal Court included matters relating to a Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) broadcasting policy, the Patent Act, Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, and Financial Administration Act.
The appeal court set the cases of Spotify AB v. Attorney General of Canada, 24-A-36; Apple Canada Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada, 24-A-37; Motion Picture Association-Canada et al. v. Canadian Association of Broadcasters, A-225-24; Apple Canada Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada, A-229-24; Amazon.com.ca ULC v. Attorney General of Canada, A-304-24; Apple Canada Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada, A-308-24; and Spotify AB v. Attorney General of Canada, A-309-24 on Feb. 3, Monday.
Amazon.com.ca ULC, Apple Canada Inc., and Spotify AB filed judicial review applications and received leave to appeal the CRTC Broadcasting Policy CRTC 2024-121-1 dated Aug. 29, 2024, as well as orders requiring certain payments.
Amazon, Apple, and Spotify requested a stay in this matter. The Motion Picture Association-Canada (MPAC) and other parties also wanted to stay the requirement for them to contribute to the independent local news fund (ILNF).
On Dec. 23, 2024, in Amazon.com.ca ULC v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FCA 217, the appeal court agreed to stay the individual orders issued to Amazon, Apple, and Spotify or the relevant parts of the order appended to the August policy until it could decide the judicial review applications and appeals challenging the August policy.
The appeal court also stayed the requirement for the MPAC and others to make payments to the ILNF. In granting the stay, the appeal court held that the parties were able to show that there would be a serious issue for trial and irreparable harm without a stay. They were also able to establish that the balance of convenience weighed in favour of the stay, the appeal court said.
The appeal court scheduled Taillefer v. Attorney General of Canada et al., A-103-24 on Feb. 4, Tuesday. The appellant in this case brought a judicial review application challenging a Commissioner of Patents decision. A judge dismissed the application.
This appeal wanted to set aside the judgment. The appellant requested a mandamus order for the reinstatement of a Canadian patent on the basis that the requirements of s. 46(5) of the Patent Act, 1985 were present in this case.
The court set Deschênes et al. c. PGC et al., T-1516-23 on Feb. 3, Monday. The applicants in this case filed a judicial review application seeking a writ of certiorari against a recommendation of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Quebec.
The recommendation sought to abolish the existing federal electoral district of Avignon–La Mitis–Matane–Matapédia and to redistribute its territory between the existing electoral districts of Gaspésie–Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine and Rimouski–Neigette–Témiscouata–Les Basques.
The applicants moved for an injunction to stay the application, for Quebec’s electoral districts, of the Proclamation Declaring the Representation Orders to be in Force Effective on the First Dissolution of Parliament that Occurs after April 22, 2024, SI/2023-57.
On Feb. 14, 2024, in Deschênes v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 219, the Federal Court dismissed the motion upon determining that the applicants did not meet the relevant test. The applicants failed to show that they would suffer irreparable harm, such as an undue dilution of their vote in a future federal election, the court said.
The court scheduled Gorenstein v Meta Platforms Inc, T-2269-24 on Feb. 4, Tuesday. This action arose from the termination of contractual relations between the plaintiff and her clients after the defendant deactivated her account.
The plaintiff requested damages for alleged lost profits, revenue, and business opportunities and for alleged mental distress, anxiety, humiliation, indignation, and outrage. She also asked for reputational, punitive, and exemplary damages.
The court set Canadian Association of PPE Manufacturers et al. v. His Majesty the King et al., T-250-24 on Feb. 4, Tuesday. This matter involved the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 1985. The plaintiffs alleged that Canada’s government made negligent misrepresentations that led them to invest in personal protective equipment (PPE) innovations, manufacturing, and production.
The plaintiffs also claimed that they had a special relationship with the federal government that gave rise to a duty of care to support Canadian small and medium-sized enterprises that pivoted and retooled their businesses to manufacture PPE for Canadians.
The court scheduled Tait v Duheme and others, T-1392-23 on Feb. 5, Wednesday. From 2020–23, the City of Richmond employed the applicant in this case as a criminal intelligence analyst supervisor out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s detachment in that city. One condition of employment was top secret security clearance.
The applicant brought a judicial review application seeking to quash any decision of the detachment to revoke or cancel his clearance. He argued that the apparent revocation of his clearance went against the procedural steps in the Treasury Board’s Standard on Security Screening, made under s. 7 of the Financial Administration Act, 1985.
The applicant also alleged that the process fell short of procedural fairness. On Feb. 8, 2024, in Tait v. Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police), 2024 FC 217, the Federal Court dismissed a motion where the respondents wanted to strike the notice of application. The court then allowed the applicant to amend his application and to file another affidavit.
