Federal Court of Appeal sets hearings for transportation and patent cases

Federal court proceedings this week involve tax and intellectual property matters

Federal Court of Appeal sets hearings for transportation and patent cases

This week, hearings scheduled before the Federal Court of Appeal and the Federal Court involved matters relating to tax, allegations of intellectual property infringement, air transportation law, and an allegedly unreasonable decision to remove signage from an airport.

Federal Court of Appeal

The court set Khawaja v. His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, A-260-22 on June 11, Tuesday. This appeal challenged the Federal Court’s order, which provided relief to Transport Canada staff who allegedly failed to provide service.

The court scheduled the cases of Brar et al v. Canada (MPSEP), A-213-22 and Dulai v. Canada (MPSEP), A-217-22 on June 13, Thursday. The appellants asked the court to remove their names from the list under s. 8(1) of the Secure Air Travel Act, 2015 and to find the legislation partly or wholly unconstitutional.

The court set Canadian Energy Services L.P. et al v. Secure Energy et al, A-203-23 on June 13, Thursday. This appeal sought to set aside the Federal Court’s decision declaring an individual as the sole true and proper inventor of the invention disclosed in Canadian patent 2,624,834 and declaring the respondent as the invention’s true and proper owner. The appellants argued that the judge failed to apply the doctrines of res judicata, issue estoppel, and abuse of process.

Federal Court

The court scheduled Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels du sud de la Gaspésie Inc. et al. c. Procureur général du Canada et al., T-1608-21 on June 10, Monday. A notice of application requested the invalidation of a Rights Reconciliation Agreement on Fisheries.

The Listuguj Mi’gmaq Government moved to strike the notice of application and to dismiss the application or alternatively to strike the notice’s portions doomed to fail. On the other hand, the applicants moved for further disclosure under rr. 317 and 318 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/96-102.

On Oct. 13, 2023, in Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels du sud de la Gaspésie v. Listuguj Mi’gmaq First Nations, 2023 FC 1206, the Federal Court granted the applicants public interest standing. The court partly granted the motion to strike, struck certain paragraphs from the notice of application, and dismissed the motion for further disclosure.

The court set Manitoba Métis Federation et al. v. Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport Authority, T-6-24 on June 10, Monday. This judicial review application wanted to quash and to set aside the respondent’s allegedly unreasonable decision to remove the applicant’s signage from the Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport.

The applicants argued that the decision lacked procedural fairness, breached the Crown’s honour, violated ss. 2(b) and 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights of Freedoms, and went against article 16 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The court scheduled Akme Poultry Butter & Eggs Distributors Inc. v. Minister of Public Safety, T-884-21 on June 13, Thursday. The underlying action related to tax. The defendant moved for an order under r. 227 of the Federal Courts Rules to compel the plaintiff to serve a further and better affidavit of documents.

Last Mar. 25, in Akme Poultry Butter & Eggs Distributors Inc. v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2024 CanLII 30068 (FC), the Federal Court dismissed the defendant’s motion. The outcome would have been the same even if the parties’ affidavit evidence was admissible, the court said.

The real issue did not involve sufficient disclosure or production but instead concerned the defendant’s desire for more accounting information to support its eventual argument, the court explained. This type of dispute was not the object of r. 227, the court added.

The court set Gemak Trust v. Jempak Corporation et al, T-1288-18 on June 14, Friday. In this patent infringement action, the defendants moved for a bifurcation order to sever liability issues from issues on the quantification of remedies, the extent of damages, and the accounting of profits.

The defendants then moved for an order granting them leave to file a further affidavit and supplemental written representations relating to the bifurcation motion. Last Jan. 18, in Gemak Trust v. Jempak Corporation, 2024 FC 82, the Federal Court largely dismissed the second motion except to grant the defendants leave to file a fresh affidavit consisting of certain specified contents.

Recent articles & video

Survey report highlights challenges and solutions for family violence cases in Nova Scotia courts

Suncor's David Kramer speaks about big deals, the energy transition and career advice

Lawyers must be increasingly aware of technological, geopolitical trends: software founder Sean West

Who made it to the 2024 list of top pro bono law firms?

Tracy Davis appointed as Assistant Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of Justice

Charles Randall Smith re-appointed as chairperson of RCMP External Review Committee

Most Read Articles

BC Supreme Court rejects husband’s claim against wife’s counsel over family home sale proceeds

Crown attorneys share responsibility for Canada’s dysfunctional justice system

Lawyer salaries may vary more in wake of competition law changes: recruiter report

'We need to have the competence to question:' LegalTech panel on genAI fakes in the legal system