Ontario Association of Architects v. Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario, 2002 FCA 218

• Judge: Stone, Evans and Sharlow, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: April 23, 2002
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2002 FCA 218;(2002), 291 N.R. 61 (FCA)

Architects Assoc. v. AATO (2002), 291 N.R. 61 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] N.R. TBEd. JN.039

Ontario Association of Architects (appellant) v. Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario (respondent)

(A-739-00; 2002 FCA 218)

Indexed As: Ontario Association of Architects v. Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario

Federal Court of Appeal

Stone, Evans and Sharlow, JJ.A.

May 28, 2002.

Summary:

The Association of Architectural Technol­ogists of Ontario (AATO) wrote to the Registrar of Trade Marks requesting public notice of the adoption and use by the AATO of the following official marks: "Architec­tural technician, Architecte-technicien, Archi­tectural technologist, Architecte-techno­logue", pursuant to s. 9(1)(n)(iii) of the Trade-marks Act. The Registrar gave the requested notice by way of publication in the Trade-marks Journal. The Ontario Associ­a­tion of Architects (OAA) sought an order reversing the Registrar's decision.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported at 196 F.T.R. 208, dismissed the application. The OAA appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 3347

Judicial review - General - Practice - Parties - Standing - The Registrar of Trademarks gave public notice, pursuant to s. 9(1) of the Trade-marks Act, that the Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario had adopted and used certain official marks - The Ontario Association of Architects (OAA) applied to have the Registrar's decision reversed - A question arose regarding the proper procedure for an interested party to challenge such a deci­sion - An applications judge held that the OAA had no standing to appeal under s. 56 of the Trade-marks Act from a decision to which it had not been a party - How­ever, the OAA's interest in the decision entitled it to seek judicial review under s. 18.1 of the Federal Court Act - The Feder­al Court of Appeal agreed - Nothing in the scheme of s. 9(1) justified a departure from the normal principle that a person who was neither a party to nor an intervener in the original proceedings had no standing to exercise a statutory right of appeal - See paragraphs 20 to 46.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 4005

Trademarks - Prohibited marks - Public authority - What constitutes - The Regis­trar of Trade Marks granted a request by the Association of Architectural Technol­ogists of Ontario (AATO) for public notice of the adoption and use by the AATO of certain official marks, pursuant to s. 9(1)(n)(iii) of the Trade-marks Act - The Ontario Association of Architects sought an order reversing the Registrar's decision - An applications judge held that the AATO was a public authority, and as such was entitled to request that public notice be given of the adoption and use of official marks - The Federal Court of Appeal disagreed - The applications judge erred in concluding that the AATO's statutory origin was in itself sufficient to make it a public authority - Some ongoing govern­ment supervision of the activities of the body was required - See paragraphs 47 to 73.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 4412

Trademarks - Practice - Standing - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3347] .

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 4414

Trademarks - Practice - Appeals - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3347 ].

Cases Noticed:

Canadian Olympic Association v. Registrar of Trade Marks, [1983] 1 F.C. 692; 43 N.R. 52 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Canadian Olympic Association v. U.S.A. Hockey Inc. et al., [1997] F.T.R. Uned. 331; 74 C.P.R.(3d) 348 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 21].

Canadian Olympic Association v. U.S.A. Basketball Inc., [1997] F.C.J. No. 825 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 21].

Canadian Olympic Association v. U.S.A. Hockey Inc. et al., [1999] N.R. Uned. 128; 3 C.P.R.(4th) 259 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Magnotta Winery Corp. et al. v. Vintners Quality Alliance of Canada (1999), 163 F.T.R. 93; 1 C.P.R.(4th) 68 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 23].

Canada Post Corp. v. Post Office, [2001] 2 F.C. 63; 191 F.T.R. 300 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 25].

Maple Leaf Meats Inc. v. Consorzio Del Prosciutto Di Parma et al. (2000), 197 F.T.R. 272 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 26].

Molson Breweries, A Partnership v. Labatt (John) Ltd., [2000] 3 F.C. 145; 252 N.R. 91 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Garbo Group Inc. v. Brown (Harriet) & Co. et al. (1999), 176 F.T.R. 80; 3 C.P.R.(4th) 224 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 29].

Canadian Pasta Manufacturers' Association v. Aurora Importing and Distributing Ltd., [1997] N.R. Uned. 49 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Austin Nichols & Co. v. Cinnabon Inc., [1998] 4 F.C. 569; 231 N.R. 362 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Canadian Olympic Association v. Konica Canada Inc. et al., [1992] 1 F.C. 797; 135 N.R. 143; 39 C.R.(3d) 400 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Mihaljevic v. British Columbia (1988), 22 F.T.R. 59 (T.D.), affd. (1990), 116 N.R. 218; 34 C.P.R.(3d) 54 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Restaurants Pacini Inc. v. Pachino's Pizza Ltd. (1994), 112 F.T.R. 29 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 37].

Société des Acadiens du Nouveau-Bruns­wick Inc. and Association des conseillers scolaires francophones du Nouveau- Brunswick v. Minority Language School Board No. 50 and Association of Parents for Fairness in Education, Grand Falls District 50 Branch, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 549; 66 N.R. 173; 69 N.B.R.(2d) 271; 177 A.P.R. 271; 27 D.L.R.(4th) 406, refd to. [para. 41].

Glaxco Wellcome plc v. Minister of National Revenue, [1998] 4 F.C. 439; 228 N.R. 164 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Stadium Corp. of Ontario Ltd. v. Wagon-Wheel Concessions Ltd. et al., [1989] 3 F.C. 132; 29 F.T.R. 241 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 49].

Big Sisters Association of Ontario and Big Sisters of Canada v. Big Brothers of Canada (1997), 131 F.T.R. 161; 75 C.P.R.(3d) 177 (T.D.), affd. (1999), 242 N.R. 171; 86 C.P.R.(3d) 504 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Anne of Green Gables Licensing Authority Inc. v. Avonlea Traditions Inc. (2000), 4 C.P.R.(4th) 289 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), affd. (2000), 130 O.A.C. 369; 6 C.P.R.(4th) 57 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al. (2002), 219 Sask.R.(2d) 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 286 N.R. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 55].

Statutes Noticed:

Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario, An Act respecting, S.O. 1996, Ch. Pr-20, gen­erally [para. 15 et seq.].

Trade-marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, sect. 9(1)(n)(iii), sect. 56(1) [para. 14].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hughes, Roger T., and Aston, Toni Polson, Hughes on Trademarks (1984), pp. 453 to 457, note 27 [para. 24].

Counsel:

Glen A. Bloom, for the appellant;

Leon J. Melconian, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Osler Hoskin & Harcourt, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

Melconian Law Office, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on April 23, 2002, in Toronto, Ontario, by Stone, Evans and Sharlow, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. Evans. J.A., delivered the following decision for the court on May 28, 2002.