Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)

[1] This is an appeal from a decision of the Canadian Transportation Agency. The Agency is not a party to the appeal. Nevertheless, after the parties to the appeal filed their memoranda of fact and law with the Court, the Agency presented to the Court its own memorandum of fact and law.

[1] On April 10, 2024, the Respondent Bank of Canada requested an assessment of costs following the order of the Court dated March 12, 2024, [Order] which states that: “[t]he motion to hold this matter in abeyance is dismissed, with costs.”

[1] Wieslaw Kuk appeals a decision of the Federal Court (2023 FC 1134, per Justice Glennys L. McVeigh) that dismissed his application for judicial review of a decision of the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal (SST). The Appeal Division decision in issue refused Mr. Kuk leave to appeal a decision of the General Division of the SST that found that he was not entitled to employment...

[1] The appellants appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court in Democracy Watch v. Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 31 (per Southcott J.). In that judgment, the Federal Court dismissed the appellants’ application challenging the process by which judges are appointed under section 96 and 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The appellants alleged that the appointment process is subject to...

[1] The appellants are defendants in a proposed class action brought under section 45 of the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34 (the Act). They sought an order removing plaintiffs’ counsel as counsel of record, alleging that counsel had received relevant confidential information in the course of a prior retainer of a lawyer who was, at one point, also counsel to the defendants.

[1] This is an appeal of a decision by the Federal Court (2022 FC 1398, per Justice Martine St-Louis) that found various claims of Canadian Patent No. 2,226,784 (the 784 Patent) to be invalid for overbreadth and insufficiency. As a result, the Federal Court dismissed actions by the appellants against the respondents alleging infringement of the 784 Patent. The respondents had also argued that the

[1] Abel Nahusenay Yihdego was found to be inadmissible to Canada pursuant to paragraphs 34(1)(a) and (f) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA) for being a member of an organization for which there are reasonable grounds to believe had engaged in espionage. These provisions make permanent residents and foreign nationals inadmissible to Canada on security grounds...

[1] In accordance with paragraphs 34(1)(a) and (f) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA), permanent residents and foreign nationals are inadmissible to Canada on security grounds if they are members of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in espionage “against Canada or that is contrary to Canada’s...

[1] The applicant, Victor Walcott, seeks judicial review of a decision of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (Board): 2023 FPSLREB 54. The Board summarily dismissed the applicant’s complaint that his former union, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, had failed in its duty of fair representation, under section 187 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, S.

[1] This appeal turns on what constitutes “use” of a patented invention for the purposes of proving infringement of a patent under section 42 of the Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4 [the Act].

[1] Janssen Inc. appeals from the judgment of the Federal Court (per Manson J.): 2023 FC 7. The Federal Court dismissed Janssen’s application for judicial review of a decision of the Minister of Health. The Minister found that Janssen’s nasal spray, SPRAVATO, was not an “innovative drug” under subsection C.08.004.1(1) of the Food and Drug Regulations, C.R.C., c. 870, and, thus, was not entitled...

[1] The appellant, Democracy Watch, appeals from the judgment of Furlanetto J. of the Federal Court (the Federal Court) rendered on June 20, 2023 (2023 FC 825), which dismissed the appellant’s application for judicial review of two reports of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada (the Commissioner). In its reports, the Commissioner concluded that the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct (former Code),...

[1] This appeal concerns the scope of the defence provided by subsection 64(2) of the Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42, against allegations of infringement of copyright and moral rights. Subsection 64(2) reads as follows:

[1] In the present appeal from a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada, the appellant moves for an Order that:

[1] Canada moves under subsection 397(2) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 (the Rules), to have the Court set aside the parts of the Judgments and Reasons for Judgment, dated February 20, 2024, ordering them to pay costs, and to substitute the words “without costs” for the existing words “with costs”.

[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board, 2021 FPSLREB 75 (Board Reasons). The Board dismissed the applicant’s grievance, upholding the employer’s termination decision.

[1] The appellant, Joseph Pilarski, appeals the Tax Court of Canada’s April 28, 2022 procedural order (per Bocock, J) in Tax Court File 2015-355(IT)G. That order adjourned the oral hearing of the respondent’s motion to quash the appellant’s appeal, and ordered that the motion be determined based on written representations. That is, the Tax Court’s order changed the...

[1] This decision comes in the context of an appeal from a decision of the Federal Court (2023 FC 1481, per Justice Martine St-Louis) that struck, without leave to amend, an amended notice of application filed by the appellant, S. Robert Chad. The Federal Court found that the application was so clearly improper as to be bereft of any possibility of success.

[1] Mr. Sinclair, a Crown prosecutor in Whitehorse, Yukon, applied to the Public Service Commission of Canada (the PSC) on January 5, 2021 for permission to seek the nomination as (and if successful to be) a candidate in the 2021 Yukon territorial election. On March 16, 2021, the PSC denied Mr. Sinclair’s request.

[1] The Sigma Chi Canadian Foundation appeals to this Court under paragraph 172(3)(a.1) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) from a decision of the Minister of National Revenue. In that decision, the Minister confirmed her intention to revoke Sigma Chi’s registration as a charity.

[1] Salt River First Nation #195 (Salt River) sought to intervene in the settlement approval motion of a class action two weeks prior to the date set for the hearing. It also sought to join the class, despite the deadline to opt in to the class action having passed. The Federal Court dismissed its request to intervene and to join the class (Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation v....

[1] The appellants appeal from a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada (Biringer J., as she then was), in Tax Court Dockets 2018-4898(IT)G, 2018-4899(IT)G, 2019-24(IT)G, and 2019-25(IT)G. In its judgment, the Tax Court dismissed the appellants’ appeals from reassessments made under the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.).

[1] The applicant, Mr. Puig, seeks judicial review of a decision of the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal dated February 22, 2023 (2023 SST 192).

[1] The applicant, Ms. T-Giorgis, seeks judicial review of a decision of the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal dated February 24, 2023 (2023 SST 196).

[1] The applicant, Ms. Molchan, seeks judicial review of a decision of the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal dated February 10, 2023 (2023 SST 139).

[1] The appellant appeals from an interlocutory order of the Tax Court (per Ouimet J.), 2022 TCC 148 (TCC Reasons), granting the respondent’s motion to strike passages from the notice of appeal and allowing the respondent to file its reply within 60 days of the Court’s order. The passages in the notice of appeal relate to the appellant’s argument on the validity of the...

[1] The appellant, Google LLC (Google), appeals a decision of the Federal Court (2022 FC 1116, per Justice Russel W. Zinn, the Infringement Decision) which found that the respondent, Sonos Inc. (Sonos), did not infringe claim 7 of Google’s Canadian Patent No. 2,545,150 (the 150 Patent). Google also appeals a subsequent Order of Justice Zinn dated September 1, 2022, which ordered Google to...

[1] The Federal Court struck out the statement of claim in the appellants’ proposed class action challenging the constitutionality of certain fees charged to individuals who apply for either permanent resident status in Canada or Canadian citizenship. The appellants asserted in their statement of claim that the levying of such fees violates subsection 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of...

[1] Gestion Micsau Inc. (Micsau), through its shares in 3295940 Canada Inc. (3295 or the appellant), held an indirect minority stake in a generic drug business. The majority owner began negotiations to sell the business to a third party. Thus, Micsau had to sell its stake in the business.

[1] This is an appeal from a decision of the Federal Court striking the appellant’s statement of claim. The appellant alleged various intentional torts and breaches of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 (the Charter) by his employer, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)...