Advanced Search

Canada (National Revenue) v. Zeifmans LLP - 2023 FC 1000 - 2023-07-21

Zeifmans had a fair and meaningful opportunity to challenge the Requirement in proceedings specifically for that purpose, and Parliament cannot have intended to allow Zeifmans to have “a second bite at the same cherry”.   [...]  The Court’s role in each type of proceeding is a more relevant consideration for discerning legislative intention, as are procedural differences and questions of fairness.   [...]  To fall under 15(2) and 20(1)(j), the connected entities who made the alleged loans would need to be dealing at non-arm’s length, and the Minister states she needs to understand the relationship between the connected entities and these three taxpayers to make that determination.

Farzam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2005 FC 1659 - 2005-12-06

In my view, while it is true that the categories of fiduciary duty are not closed, they do not include the duties owed by Immigration Officials to immigrants who are in a position to and do obtain legal assistance for their dealings with the Department.   [...]  Lord Moulton may in the context of that case have been contemplated immunity from suit for negligence but the sentiment supports the concent of its not being faire or reasonable to impose liability for negligence in the case of an immigrant officer performing his public duty.   [...]  In my view, it would not be just, fair and reasonable for the law of this land to impose a duty of care on those responsible for the administrative implementation of immigration policies of the kind which have been made in the case of the Plaintiff, absent evidence of bad faith, misfeasance, or abuse of process.

Spencer v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2021 FC 361 - 2021-04-23

If Glooscap blundered itself into involvement in this tax shelter, oblivious to any real risk, the irreparable harm might not be fairly laid at its feet.   [...]  They argue that after more than a year of dealing with COVID-19 there is sufficient data on which to make policy decisions such that the precautionary principle is no longer applicable.

Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc. - 2010 FC 1065 - 2010-10-29

I will say more about this issue when I deal with the issue of utility later in these reasons.   [...]  [73] I am not satisfied, however, that the Lundbeck decision can be fairly applied to the facts of this case.

Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Canada - 2021 FC 1014 - 2021-09-29

It is notable that Justice Bastarache explicitly recognized that the facts of Kingstreet did not deal with the administrative law sense of ultra vires (at paras 3-4):   [...]  ... Because I have rejected the passing-on defence as generally inapplicable in the context of ultra vires taxes, it is not necessary to deal with the doctrine of protest and compulsion.   [...]  [701] The historical frame leading to the 1966 deal between Canada and CPRC was also described by the testimony of the Plaintiff’s experts, Drs. Hanna and Klein.

Amgen Inc. v. Pfizer Canada ULC - 2020 FC 522 - 2020-04-16

Amgen acknowledges Dr. Van Etten was fair in responding to the propositions put to him by Amgen's counsel on cross-examination.   [...]  In the present case, Amgen relied upon the earlier of two priority filing dates, namely August 23, 1985, and Apotex was apparently content to deal with obviousness as of that date.   [...]  [339] Appendix “A” explains that a molecular biologist designing a probe had two ways to deal with degeneracy: the mixed probe approach and the unique probe approach.

Innovative Medicines Canada v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2020 FC 725 - 2020-06-29

The board attempts to deal with abuse. It is the abuse of the monopoly granted to the patentee, not price-fixing, in which the board is involved.   [...]  Pursuant to subsection 3(4) of the Amendments, the calculation of “price” for the purposes of this paragraph now includes financial dealings with third parties.   [...]  [181] Furthermore, every enactment is deemed remedial, and shall be given such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects (Interpretation Act, RSC, 1985 c I-21, s 12).

3469051 Canada Inc. v. Axis Heating and Air Conditioning Inc. - 2019 FC 1103 - 2019-08-27

6 (2) L’emploi d’une marque de commerce crée de la confusion avec une autre marque de commerce lorsque l’emploi des deux marques de commerce dans la même région serait susceptible de faire conclure que les produits liés à ces marques de commerce sont fabriqués, vendus, donnés à bail ou loués, ou que les services liés à ces   [...]  In Cartier, Inc. v. Cartier Optical Ltd./Lunettes Cartier Ltée,21 Dubé J. found that the Cartier name, being merely a surname, had little inherent distinctiveness, but, nevertheless, it had acquired a great deal of distinctiveness through publicity.

Avant-Garde Engineering (1994) Inc. v. Gestion de Brevets Fraco Ltée - 1998-05-07

: It is clear, however, that this section "deals only with the incidence of proof, not with the standard of proof.   [...]  It is like a cage, if you want, which has some fairly strong moorings to allow some ... where efforts may be concentrated to help apply the entire platform load at that location and to get the platform carried by the cylinder.

Hoffmann-La Roche Limited v. Sandoz Canada Inc. - 2021 FC 384 - 2021-05-12

Adherence to the language of the claims allows them to be read in the manner the inventor is presumed to have intended, and in a way that is sympathetic to accomplishing the inventor’s purpose, promoting fairness and predictability;   [...]  The whole of the specification should be considered to ascertain the nature of the invention, and the construction of the claims must be neither benevolent nor harsh, but should instead be reasonable and fair to both the patentee and the public; and   [...]  [114] ... However, a distinction must be made between claims that rely upon the skill and judgment of a medial practitioner and those that deal with a vendible product, be it a scalpel, X-ray machine or 1 mg tablet that are to be used or prescribed for use by such practitioner.

Levett v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2021 FC 295 - 2021-04-12

Levett and Baazov were the subject of an investigation by the AMF. In the context of that investigation, the AMF had seized all of the documents relating to their dealings in the securities of a Canadian publicly traded company.   [...]  It is further understood that this provision intends to provide the taxpayer a fair procedure and not to prevent or unduly delay the exchange of information process.

Abdulkadir v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2018 FC 318 - 2018-03-20

[52] In my view, the Decision is careful, fair and reasonable. The Applicant’s attempts to assert reviewable errors are unconvincing.   [...]  Respondent’s counsel correctly pointed out that this issue had not been raised in written submissions, he was not in a position to deal with it, and the Court should not consider it at this stage.

Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Teva Canada Limited - 2017 FC 777 - 2017-08-22

This was consistent with the TGA data, where the loss of water did not occur past 100 °C. Hydrates tend to lose the water of crystallization fairly readily at elevated temperatures due to dehydration, and convert to anhydrous crystalline forms or non-crystalline material.   [...]  I take this to mean that the “therapeutically acceptable amount” of the medicine claimed is to be determined by a person with medical expertise dealing with his or her patient.   [...]  [256] I will deal with each of these considerations. J. Is it more or less self-evident that what is being tried ought to work?