Federal Court handles immigration, environmental law, patent infringement suits this week
This week, the Federal Court of Appeal and the Federal Court scheduled hearings of access-to-information cases. The Federal Court also dealt with matters involving immigration, intellectual property, species at risk, and contempt in the context of a labour arbitration award.
Federal Court of Appeal
On Tuesday, the court heard His Majesty the King v. MMV Capital Partners Inc., A-245-20. The appellant challenged the Tax Court of Canada’s judgment allowing reassessments made under the Income Tax Act, 1985.
The Tax Court wrongly concluded that certain transactions did not frustrate or abuse the legislation’s provisions within the meaning of s. 245, which contained the general anti-avoidance rule, the appellant alleged.
On Wednesday, the court heard Actial Farmaceutica S.R.L. v. The Minister of Health, A-196-22. The appellant wanted to set aside the Federal Court’s judgment dismissing an application to restrict the release of certain materials under the Access to Information Act, 1985.
These documents were exempt from disclosure, which was requested by Health Canada’s Access to Information and Privacy Division, under s. 20(1) of the legislation, the appellant claimed.
On Thursday, the court will hear Robin Francis v. Canada (Attorney General), A-83-23. The applicant tried to apply for a human rights exemption to a COVID-19 vaccination policy at work. His employer, the London Health Sciences Centre, terminated his employment.
This judicial review application questioned a decision by the Social Security Tribunal’s Appeal Division. The applicant challenged the denial of his claim for employment insurance benefits under the Employment Insurance Act, 1996.
Federal Court
On Monday, the court heard the cases of Nilufa Begum et al v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, IMM-9133-22 and Nilufa Begum et al v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, IMM-9135-22.
The applicants moved to stay the execution of their removal to Bangladesh until the disposition of their applications for leave and judicial review of the refusal of their applications for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds and for a pre-removal risk assessment.
In September 2022, in Begum v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 CanLII 88664 (FC), the Federal Court granted the motions of the applicants and stayed their removal. The applicants were able to establish a serious issue, the court found.
On Wednesday, the court heard Western Canada Wilderness Committee and Sierra Club of British Columbia Foundation v. Minister of Environment and Climate Change, T-849-22. This judicial review application challenged the minister’s decision issuing a protection statement.
The minister, through this statement, unreasonably limited his obligations to ensure the protection of the critical habitat of threatened, endangered, and extirpated migratory birds under s. 58(5.2) of the Species at Risk Act, 2002.
On Wednesday, the court heard Hockey Canada v. Canadian Heritage, T-1248-21. This judicial review application questioned Canadian Heritage’s decision to disclose allegedly confidential records relating to grant applications from Hockey Canada under the Access to Information Act.
On Wednesday, the court heard the cases of Janssen Inc. et al v. Apotex Inc., T-1121-22; Janssen Inc. et al v. Apotex Inc., T-1122-22; Janssen Inc. et al v. Apotex Inc., T-1248-22; and Janssen Inc. et al v. Apotex Inc., T-1249-22. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant would infringe a patent.
Last June, in Janssen Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 2023 FC 912, the Federal Court dismissed a motion for summary judgment in the four related patent infringement actions filed under s. 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133.
On Thursday, the court will hear Kobold Corporation et al v. NCS Multistage Inc., T-451-20. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant infringed a patent through using four bottomhole assembly tools, including a device called the Mongoose.
The defendant moved to appeal an order allowing the plaintiffs to amend their claim to continue to include patent infringement allegations against the Mongoose device. Last January, in Kobold Corporation v. NCS Multistage Inc., 2023 FC 11, the Federal Court granted the motion with respect to the amendment relating to only the Mongoose.
On Thursday, the court will hear Teamsters Canada Rail Conference v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company, T-608-18. The applicant filed a contempt motion alleging that the respondent acted in violation of a labour arbitrator’s award.
Last June, in Teamsters Canada Rail Conference v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company, 2023 FC 796, the Federal Court found the railway company guilty of contempt in certain incidents, given that it failed to cease and desist in violating the rest provisions of two collective agreements.
