Case scheduled at Federal Court this week involves requirements for slaughterhouse licence holders
This week, hearings scheduled before the Supreme Court of Canada and the Federal Court included issues relating to criminal law, rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and intellectual property law relating to patents and trademarks.
The Supreme Court set Kloubakov, et al. v. His Majesty the King, 41017 on Nov. 13, Wednesday. Here, the trial judge convicted the appellants of obtaining a material benefit from sexual services under s. 286.2(1) and of procuring under s. 286.3(1) of the Criminal Code, 1985. She also declared ss. 286.2(1), (4), and (5) and 286.3(1) unconstitutional and stayed the proceedings.
The judge found these provisions overbroad. The provisions deprived certain sex workers of the right to security, went against the principles of fundamental justice, and infringed s. 7 of the Charter of without justification under s. 1 of the Charter, she said.
The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the stay and the declarations of invalidity for ss. 286.2 and 286.3, which were found not to infringe s. 7 of the Charter. The appeal court convicted the appellants and referred the case to the Alberta Court of King’s Bench for sentencing.
The Supreme Court scheduled Bouvette v. His Majesty the King, 40780 on Nov. 14, Thursday. The appellant in this case was babysitting a 19-month-old baby who died while having a bath. She faced a charge of second degree murder and pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal admitted certain fresh evidence, allowed the appeal, set aside the appellant’s conviction based on a miscarriage of justice, vacated her guilty plea, and stayed the proceedings.
The respondent possessed relevant information about the reliability of the evidence and the opinions of the doctor who conducted the autopsy that it failed to disclose to the appellant’s counsel, the appeal court said. If there had been a full disclosure, it was reasonably possible that the appellant would not have pleaded guilty, the appeal court added.
The court set The Jewish Community Council of Montreal et al. v. Attorney General of Canada, T-511-24 on Nov. 12, Tuesday. An application challenged a requirement imposed under the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s guidelines for ritual slaughter of food animals without pre-slaughter stunning on slaughterhouse licence holders producing kosher meat.
The applicants, seeking interlocutory injunctive relief, claimed that these guidelines and ss. 143–144 of the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations, SOR/2018-108 were unreasonable or ultra vires, were against their right to freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter, and were discriminatory under s. 15 of the Charter.
They argued that the guidelines’ enforcement impacted kosher meat supply in Canada and deprived Canadian Jews of a tenet of their faith. Last July 24, in Jewish Community Council of Montreal v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 1163, the Federal Court granted the motion for injunctive relief.
The court scheduled Janssen Inc. et al v. Jamp Pharma Corporation, T-48-24 on Nov. 14, Thursday. The plaintiffs in this case alleged that the defendant’s acts of making, constructing, using, importing, or selling a product containing the medicinal ingredient canagliflozin under an abbreviated new drug submission would infringe certain patent claims.
The plaintiffs then brought a motion for samples. Last May 29, in Janssen Inc. v. Jamp Pharma Corporation, 2024 FC 816, the Federal Court ordered the defendant to make reasonable efforts to obtain from its supplier and to produce to the plaintiffs certain tablets, active pharmaceutical ingredients, and information.
The court set Adeia Guides, Inc. et al. v. BCE Inc. et al., T-1184-21 on Nov. 14, Thursday. This patent infringement matter involved digital entertainment technologies, including interactive program guides and various features of these guides.
The plaintiffs and the defendants both moved to compel the other side to answer questions and to produce documents refused during follow-up discovery examinations of the parties’ respective corporate representatives. Last Oct. 3, in Adeia Guides, Inc. v. BCE Inc., 2024 CanLII 94107 (FC), the Federal Court specified which questions the parties needed and did not need to answer.
The court scheduled Double Diamond Distribution, Ltd. v. Crocs Canada Inc. et al., T-438-19 on Nov. 15, Friday. The plaintiff in this case claimed that the defendants falsely represented that the material used in their footwear products was patented.
The plaintiff argued that the defendants breached s. 52 of the Competition Act, 1985 and ss. 7(a) and 7(d) of the Trademarks Act, 1985. On Oct. 31, 2019, in Double Diamond Distribution, Ltd v. Crocs Canada, Inc., 2019 FC 1373, the Federal Court allowed the motion for security for costs of the defendants in the value of $50,000.