Advanced Search

Gregory v. Canada - 2002 FCT 420 - 2002-04-11

There is no dispute that the function of pleadings is to define with clarity and precision the questions in controversy between the parties and to give fair notice of the case which has to be met so that the opposing party may direct its evidence to the issues disclosed by them.   [...]  During her testimony, she appeared remarkably naive regarding customs protocol, especially in light of her previous travel experience and dealings with customs.

Minnesota Mining And Manufacturing Co. v. Chemque Inc. - 2001 FCT 216 - 2001-03-21

The Defendant says that the test for the removal of counsel of a party's choice is whether a fair-minded, reasonably informed member of the public would conclude that the proper administration of justice required the removal of such counsel from the record.   [...]  [44] However, the fact remains that this Court can deal only with matters which fall within its jurisdiction.

Gee v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue) - 2001-01-17

3) did not comply with the principles of natural justice or procedural fairness; and/or   [...]  With respect to your complaint P48427, the Commission decided, pursuant to paragraph 41(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, not to deal with the complaint because the complaint is beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission in that it is not based upon a proscribed ground of discrimination pursuant to section 3 of the Act.

Maliseet Nation At Tobique v. Bear - 1999-12-02

(3) The Minister may extend the period of time referred to in subsection (2) where the Minister is satisfied that a complaint was made in that period to a government official who had no authority to deal with the complaint but that the person making the complaint believed the official had that authority.   [...]  241. (1) La personne congédiée visée au paragraphe 240(1) ou tout inspecteur peut demander par écrit à l'employeur de lui faire connaître les motifs du congédiement; le cas échéant, l'employeur est tenu de lui fournir une déclaration écrite à cet effet dans les quinze jours qui suivent la demande.

London Life Insurance Co. v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. - 1999-03-24

The relevant passage for the purposes of this appeal is part (d) dealing with confusion.   [...]  He found that LIBERTÉ 55 had considerable acquired distinctiveness, that it had become fairly well known in Canada in association with life insurance and financial planning, and that its acquired distinctiveness was augmented by virtue of London Life's very extensive use of the FREEDOM 55 trade-mark.

Imray v. Canada - 1998-10-06

However, counsel for the Minister conceded at the close of the evidence called that, because the exact same box was checked "yes" for the 1986 and 1987 taxation years, apparently by a different person than the 1988 form [Ex. P-2], on case authority I am entitled to deal with the evidence and am not bound by the documents   [...]  I do not think it is possible as a general rule, nor advisable, to say that a certain frequency of occurrence complies with the requirements of the provision, since an individual set of circumstances might be far more difficult to analyse fairly than this rather simple approach would allow.

Astrazeneca Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc. - 2011 FC 505 - 2011-05-24

• [55] As to the first prong of the test, an applicant’s burden is fairly low.   [...]  Given that AstraZeneca launched the within action fairly recently, and is continuing to pursue it, it is reasonable to assume that AstraZeneca believes that it will prevail.   [...]  AstraZeneca also submitted that “there will be a significant impact on AstraZeneca’s ongoing and future performance,” as described in the section of its submissions dealing with the irreparable harm prong of the tri-partite test.

Calgon Carbon Corporation v. North Bay (City) - 2006 FC 1373 - 2006-11-14

In the course of completing that deal, Trojan agreed to indemnify North Bay against any claim of patent infringement arising from the use of the system.   [...]  Calgon waived the license fee for that installation because Mr. Dinkel, as part of the deal, agreed to provide tours to prospective Calgon customers.   [...]  Calgon’s experts conceded that if UV treatment within the scope of the claims was being employed to deal with bacteria, Crypto was also inactivated.

L'Oréal v. Cosmética Cabinas, S.L - 2016 FC 680 - 2016-06-17

In particular, Cabinas submits that this evidence (i) does not call into question the finding that the AINHOA mark had been used in Canada prior to January 16, 2009, (ii) deals with factors of the test for likelihood of confusion that the Registrar found to be in favour of L’Oréal; and (iii) contains admissions confirming   [...]  [35] Under section 2 of the Act, “use,” in relation to a trade-mark, means any use that by section 4 is “deemed to be a use in association with goods or services.” Subsection 4(1) of the Act, which specifically deals with the use of a trade-mark in association with goods, reads as follows:   [...]  5 Une personne est réputée faire connaître une marque de commerce au Canada seulement si elle l’emploie dans un pays de l’Union, autre que le Canada, en liaison avec des produits ou services, si, selon le cas :

Badawy v. 1038482 Alberta Ltd. (IntelliView Technologies Inc.) - 2019 FC 504 - 2019-04-23

[61] The Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta is not the only Court that has found it necessary to deal with Mr. Badawy’s vexatious approach to litigation.   [...]  [94] Mr. Badawy has made no attempt to answer or refute these allegations in his submissions before me except to repeat the same unsubstantiated allegations of impropriety against the IDs and BLG. My review of the record behind these undisputed allegations confirms that they are fair and accurate.   [...]  And, in any event, such matters cannot be used to prevent the Court from dealing with and proscribing his abusive and vexatious conduct.

George v. Heiltsuk First Nation - 2022 FC 1786 - 2022-12-21

In my view, sur-reply argument should only be permitted in special circumstances where considerations of procedural fairness and the need to make a proper determination require it.   [...]  [56] The Respondent relies on Cyanamid Canada Inc v Canada (Commissioner of Patents), [1983] FCJ No 429, 74 CPR (2d) 133 [Cyanamid] for the proposition that “where there is... a clear question of jurisdiction which may determine the entire matter, common sense dictates, and [Rule 4] permits, that the Court deal with the   [...]  [98] I further note that the Court has assumed jurisdiction in decisions dealing with banishment and removal of individuals under residency bylaws enacted by band councils pursuant to the Indian Act: see Solomon v Garden River First Nation, 2019 FC 1505.

Neri v. Canada - 2021 FC 1443 - 2021-12-17

[30] Directive 3 acknowledges delays in dealing with accommodation requests and extends the deadline for submitting all such requests to December 18, 2021.   [...]  29.11 The Chief of the Defence Staff is the final authority in the grievance process and shall deal with all matters as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and the considerations of fairness permit

Bacon St-Onge v. Conseil des Innus de Pessamit - 2017 FC 1179 - 2017-12-21

Finally, he argues that the challenge to the elections that he presented to the review committee [the Committee] was not dealt with according to the established procedure or to the appropriate principles of fairness.   [...]  He argues that the application for judicial review is in the public interest because it deals with the validity of the 2015 Code and the 2016 elections.   [...]  [93] The applicant argues that many of the allegations in the respondents’ affidavits are based on their opinions and deal with questions of law that should be decided by the Court, but he did not identify specific paragraphs and did not ask to have them struck.