Advanced Search

Nycomed Canada Inc. v. Canada (Health) - 2008 FC 555 - 2008-04-29

known to inhibit the secretion of gastric juice or acid in the stomach.Its use as such is no longer protected by patent.For the purpose of this motion, it is fair to say that the relevant claims of the ‘694 Patent appear to be for a composition of pantoprazole both partly resistant and partly non-resistant to gastric   [...]   claim 3 of the patent does not contain a claim for the medicine, she specifically mentions that Apotex’s NOA, in respect of allegations of irrelevant claims, deals only with claim 3 of the ‘694 Patent; accordingly, that is the only claim that she herself addresses and determines on the issue of relevance.Indeed, the Court

Solvay Pharma Inc. v. Apotex Inc. - 2007 FC 913 - 2007-09-14

[7] This motion does not deal with any matter that is vital to the final issues (such as, for example, a motion to strike).   [...]  Thus, it is fair to say that each case will involve a different weighing depending on the individual circumstances before the decision maker.

Willson v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2007 FC 488 - 2007-05-04

Given that the end of the civil war is still fairly recent, it was also reasonable to conclude that medical services should continue to improve in Liberia.   [...]  It is certain, with Baker, that the interests of the children are one factor that an immigration officer must examine with a great deal of attention.

Ha v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) - 2006 FC 594 - 2006-05-12

It is clear from the case authorities that a contrary intention has been fairly frequently recognized in connection with statutory duties of the sort created by section 27(1) of the Act. Often such provisions are found to be directory, albeit subject to judicial supervision by way of mandamus for unreasonable delay.   [...]  [16] One of the most comprehensive decisions dealing with the mandatory/directory question is Rahman v. Alberta College and Assn. of Respiratory Therapy, [2001] A.J. No. 343, 2001 ABQB 222.

Lalancette v. The Queen - 2005 TCC 748 - 2005-12-09

. . . we are dealing with an RRSP strip scheme that benefits the promoters as well as the annuitants like the Appellant because they succeeded in obtaining money from their RRSPs without any tax consequences, had it not been for this assessment in dispute.   [...]  the fair market value of (c) the non-qualified investment at the time it was acquired by the trust, or

Glaxosmithkline Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2004 FC 1725 - 2004-12-10

[12] Thus, both patents deal with processes for the controlled release of active substances.   [...]  The construction of a patent must be neither benevolent nor harsh, but rather should be reasonable and fair to both the public and the patentee.

Sherman v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue) - 2004 FC 1423 - 2004-10-14

c) contenant des renseignements dont la divulgation risquerait vraisemblablement de nuire aux activités destinées à faire respecter les lois fédérales ou provinciales ou au déroulement d'enquêtes licites, notamment_:   [...]  Again, it is urged that the person who deals with the IRS is the best person to determine what damage may occur.

Canada (Attorney General) v. Canada (Human Rights Commission) - 2003 FC 1373 - 2003-11-20

[21] The Tribunal considered the cases dealing with the requirements for proving a prima facie case.   [...]  Moreover, promotions were not decided on an individual basis but rather on the basis of a merit list created annually through a fairly complex process.

Januario v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2002 FCT 527 - 2002-05-08

The report, however, does not address the concern arising from the use of an unfamiliar word, instead it deals with the applicant's understanding of the word torture.   [...]  In my opinion, this is a fair assessment of the evidence. [29] Similarly, in my view, the CRDD did not base its finding of exclusion on the applicant's alleged admission of having personally committed torture while he served with the ANP. Instead, the CRDD found that the applicant was excluded on the basis of his complicity

Li v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2001 FCT 1242 - 2001-11-14

While a compassionate person could conclude that these were manifestations of the applicant's understandable anxiety in a difficult situation, a fair-minded person could also conclude that the applicant was anxious because she was not being truthful.   [...]  Mr. Markaki argued that the CRDD only considered the issue of whether punishment for illegal exit was persecutory, without specifically dealing with how the applicants' well-publicized refugee claims would be viewed by Chinese authorities and the effect it might have on their punishment.

Sidhu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2001 FCT 197 - 2001-03-19

Thus, although subsection 12(3) of the Act does not itself mention time, it is clear that on the basis of subsection 14(2) of the Act, the Minister's own guidelines as described above, and the rules of fairness and natural justice that a reasonable time should be prescribed within which the interview should take place.   [...]  [19] The Act deals with loss of status for a permanent resident. Subsection 24(1) reads as follows:

Beattie v. Canada - 2000-11-24

In addition, declarations are sought regarding personal entitlement to receive payment of an equal per capita share of the total fair market value of the mineral rights of I.R. No. 172 and for compound interest payable in regard to the alleged personal entitlement.   [...]  The only loss or damage claimed by the plaintiffs as a result of the alleged breach is said to arise from the defendant's dealings with I.R. No. 172.

Bayside Towing Ltd. v. Canadian Pacific Railway - 2000-06-28

Mr. Justice Teitelbaum, in allowing the discovery, did not deal directly with the issue of whether the Rule permitted only discovery of individuals as witnesses as opposed to discovery as agents or representatives of corporations.   [...]  I need not consider the third and fourth requirements of the Rule, those of fairness and of delay, inconvenience or expense to the person to be examined or to other parties, for those elements were not put at issue.