Cases scheduled at Federal Court this coming week involve intellectual property law, a class action
This coming week, hearings scheduled before the Federal Court of Appeal and Federal Court included matters relating to the Indian Act, Income Tax Act, Excise Tax Act, Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure), and Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations.
The appeal court set His Majesty the King v. Vefghi Holding Corporation et al, A-264-23 on Mar. 4, Tuesday. This appeal wanted to set aside a Tax Court of Canada order determining a question of law or mixed law and fact under r. 58 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure), SOR/90-688a.
An issue in this case revolved around s. 104(19) of the Income Tax Act, 1985, which explains the conditions for whether a portion of a taxable dividend received by a trust on a share of the capital stock of a taxable Canadian corporation would be considered a taxable dividend on the share received by a taxpayer.
The appeal court scheduled 1351231 Ontario Inc. v. His Majesty the King, A-141-24 on Mar. 4, Tuesday. This case arose from a Tax Court of Canada judgment dismissing an appeal against a notice of assessment issued by the Minister of National Revenue under part IX of the Excise Tax Act, 1985 (ETA).
The appellant challenged the trial judge’s finding that its sale of an Ottawa-based condominium unit was a taxable supply of real property rather than an exempt supply under s. 2 of part I of schedule V of the ETA, as well as the finding that the condominium was not a residential complex under s. 123(1) of the ETA.
The court set the cases of Fridman v. The Minister of Foreign Affairs et al., T-2724-23 and Fridman v. The Minister of Foreign Affairs et al., T-2726-23 on Mar. 5, Wednesday. The applicants in these cases were K. Fridman and L. Fridman, respectively. The two of them were sisters.
They applied to Global Affairs Canada for a delisting from the sanctions list found in part 1 of schedule 1 of the Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations, SOR/2014-58, introduced under the Special Economic Measures Act, 1992.
The foreign affairs minister refused to recommend the removal of the applicants’ names from the list. The applicants requested a judicial review. They then moved for a confidentiality order over certain portions of their documents in the proceedings. They argued that, without this order, they could be risking their personal safety and prosecution under Russian law.
Last July 12, in Fridman v. Canada (Foreign Affairs), 2024 FC 1102, the Federal Court mostly dismissed the motion of applicant K. Fridman apart from making a proposed redaction to a bank account number. On the same date, in Fridman v. Canada (Foreign Affairs), 2024 FC 1103, the Federal Court dismissed the motion of applicant L. Fridman.
In both cases, the court held that most of the portions of the documents that the applicants alleged should be confidential should instead be in the public record, given that they failed to show a serious risk to an identified interest.
The court scheduled Hardy v. Attorney General of Canada, T-143-18 on Mar. 5, Wednesday. The plaintiff in this case brought an action alleging that Canada breached its duties owed to those admitted to Indian hospitals.
On Jan. 17, 2020, in Hardy v. Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FC 73, the Federal Court deemed it appropriate to certify this action as a class proceeding against the federal attorney general. The court’s order defined the primary and family classes and appointed class counsel as well as a representative plaintiff for each class.
The court set The Mohawks of Akwesasne et al v. His Majesty the King in right of Canada et al, T-2210-76 on Mar. 7, Friday. This matter under the Indian Act, 1985 involved the issue of a band’s rights as opposed to those of an individual band member holding a certificate of possession.
The present proceeding revolved around “Area M,” which was an area of land on Cornwall Island in the St. Lawrence River. The plaintiffs moved to summarily dismiss a portion of the statement of claim relating to the dumping of fill on land within Area M.
On July 27, 2015, in Mohawks of Akwesasne v. St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, 2015 FC 918, the Federal Court dismissed the motion seeking summary judgment. The court noted that issues concerning Area M overlapped with issues governing in the rest of the claim, which the court could not decide at this stage.
The court scheduled Yelda Haber Ve Görsel Yayincilik A.S. v. GLWiZ Inc. et al., T-206-21 on Mar. 7, Friday. The plaintiff filed a copyright infringement action alleging that the defendants broadcast and distributed the plaintiff’s original entertainment programs without a license.
The defendants denied infringement and argued that they had the authority to broadcast the programs. After a follow-up examination, they brought a second discovery motion aiming to compel answers to certain questions.
On June 6, 2023, in Yelda Haber Ve Görsel Yayincilik A.S. v. GLWiZ Inc, 2023 FC 778, the Federal Court directed the plaintiff to answer some questions and allowed the defendants to conduct a further discovery examination. The court dismissed the defendants’ motions concerning certain questions and seeking relief under rr. 232 and 248 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106.
