Cases set at Federal Court this week involve privacy and intellectual property law
This week, hearings set before the Federal Court of Appeal and the Federal Court included matters relating to the Customs Tariff, the Privacy Act, and allegations relating to civil conspiracy, equitable fraud, and copyright infringement.
The appeal court scheduled the cases of Best Buy Canada Ltd. v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency, A-338-23 and Best Buy Canada Ltd. v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency, A-339-23 on Feb. 25, Tuesday.
In this case, Best Buy Canada Ltd. appealed a decision of the Canada Border Services Agency’s president. It argued that certain disputed goods were classifiable under a specific tariff item in the Schedule to the Customs Tariff, 1997.
The presiding member of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal dismissed Best Buy’s appeal of this decision. Best Buy wanted to set aside the ruling of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal’s presiding member.
The court set Estate of Buck et al. v. AGC et al., T-1929-19 on Feb. 24, Monday. Here, an action alleged that Enoch Cree Nation’s specific claim to Canada wrongly included, without the plaintiffs’ knowledge or consent, certain lands within its Stony Plain Reserve No. 135 to raise the quantum of compensation.
The plaintiffs requested declaratory relief and damages relating to their claims of wrongdoing. These claims included allegations of civil conspiracy between Canada and Enoch Cree Nation to commit equitable fraud against the plaintiffs.
Last Sept. 25, in Buck Estate v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 1515, the Federal Court dismissed the motion of the plaintiffs seeking to set aside the Attorney General of Canada’s claim for settlement privilege over 518 documents listed in its affidavit of documents and seeking to require Canada to produce those documents.
The court scheduled Lukács v. Chairperson of the CTA, T-516-19 on Feb. 24, Monday. The applicant in this case requested records from the Canadian Transportation Agency, which provided some documents and withheld others based on ss. 12, 26, 27, and 70 of the Privacy Act, 1985.
At the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, the applicant filed a complaint alleging that the agency’s chairperson improperly invoked certain exemptions. The Federal Court allowed the respondent to file a confidential affidavit with confidential exhibits. The applicant moved to vary the court’s confidentiality order.
On Dec. 19, 2019, in Lukács v. Canada (Transportation Agency), 2019 FC 1646, the Federal Court issued an order ruling that the affidavit should be served on the applicant and filed as a public document since its content was not confidential. However, the court found that the exhibits should remain confidential, sealed, and inaccessible to the applicant and the public.
The court set Comartin et al v. Marsh et al, T-1342-20 on Feb. 28, Friday. The plaintiffs in this case filed a copyright infringement action against the defendants. The defendants moved to dismiss the action for delay or to require the plaintiffs to post security for costs.
On Jan. 31, 2024, in Comartin v. Marsh, 2024 FC 160, the Federal Court partly allowed the motion. The court ordered the plaintiffs to post security for costs amounting to $5,000. If the plaintiffs failed to do so, the court would dismiss the action with costs awarded in favour of the defendants.
