BenchPress--Vol 42-1.

• Author: Peerani, Aaida

1. Bribery Law in Canada is No Joking Matter

   The Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) has shown that the bribery laws in Canada are nothing to scoff at. The ONCA upheld the trial decision convicting Nazir Karigar for agreeing to bribe a foreign official contrary to the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act. Karigar was sentenced to three years in prison. In making this decision, the Court noted that a person can be convicted of direct or indirect agreement to bribery even if there was no bribe paid and the foreign official was never approached with the bribe or aware of it.

   R v Karigar, 2017 ONCA 576 (CanLII)2

2. Duty to Consult is Not a Veto

   The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released a decision reviewing the National Energy Board (NEB)'s approval of a pipeline project proposed by Enbridge Pipelines Inc. The proposed project would modify a pipeline to reverse its flow, increase its capacity, and allow it to carry heavy crude.

   The NEB approved the project even after having consulted the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation (Chippewas). The Chippewas were concerned that the project would increase pipeline ruptures and spills and could adversely impact their use of the land. However, the NEB found that the impacts to Indigenous groups would be minimal and appropriately mitigated. The Chippewas' appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal was dismissed.The Chippewas then appealed to the SCC, where their claim was dismissed again. The SCC found that the NEB, acting on behalf of the Crown, had fulfilled its duty to consult to the Chippewas. The SCC highlighted that the duty to consult "is not the vehicle to address historical grievances" and "does not provide Indigenous groups with a 'veto' over final Crown decisions."

   Chippewas of the Thames First Nation v Enbridge Pipelines Inc., 2017 SCC 41 (CanLII)

3. Google Search

   The SCC upheld a novel injunction order against Google, who found itself to be an unwilling third party in an intellectual property dispute. An injunction is an order that restrains a party from beginning or continuing specific acts.

   The defendant "D", previously a distributor for the plaintiff "E", re-labelled and sold E's inventory as its own and used E's intellectual property and trade secrets to its advantage. The British Columbia Supreme Court ordered D to halt its activities to avoid any potential further harm to E. In contravention of this order, D continued the sale of product and use of intellectual property through the internet. D...