Advanced Search

AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Pharmascience Inc. - 2012 FC 1189 - 2012-10-11

[165] The evidence shows that Dr. Desbrières’ tests deal with five different subtypes of low-viscosity HPMC rather than tests of different batches of the same subtype.   [...]  ... The court should, therefore, in construing a specification, be the fair and impartial arbitrator between the patentee and the public.   [...]  * the requirement is that the claims be fairly based on the patent disclosure (para. 59);

Westcoast Energy Inc. v. The Queen - 2020 TCC 116 - 2020-10-28

[30] In Brasserie Labatt, Justice Teskey noted that “Sections 174 and 175 [of the ETA] are very similar although the former deals with allowances while the latter with reimbursements.” [18] As set out above, subparagraph 174(a)(iv) refers to supplies of property or services acquired by an employee “in relation to activities  [...]  And, obviously, if it didn’t, I would need to deal with it, saying, I didn’t go for that service, so they’re – they’re probably a fraudulent claim, et cetera, but -- and then in my massage therapist’s case, she gets paid directly from Manulife on my behalf, and I get a note when the payment is made.   [...]  [49] Although most dentists and pharmacists used direct billing, most of the other health care providers, including paramedical providers, generally did not use direct billing, as it was “a fairly new and recent thing....” [50] Mr. DeBoer did state that direct billing was becoming more prevalent; [51] however, that

Apotex Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis - 2010 FC 182 - 2010-02-18

How that assumption will impact the case management of this matter will become apparent as I deal with the various aspects of these motions.”   [...]  The Apotex Defendants also plead and rely upon subsections 55.2(1) and (6) of the Patent Act, as they read at all material times, dealing with the manufacture, construction, use or sale (collectively, for the purposes of paragraphs 83 to 84, “use”) of a patented invention relating to the development of regulatory   [...]  Apotex would also use those new facts to argue that preclusion of action outside the U.S. should be an implied term of the May 2006 Agreement, based on the presumed intention of the parties, in order to give it business efficacy or as necessary to a fair functioning of the Agreement.

Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Novopharm Limited - 2009 FC 235 - 2008-03-19

She formed her own company and deals in the filing of New Drug Submissions and Abbreviated New Drug Submissions with Health Canada.   [...]  It was also conceded by all Counsel at the hearing that claim 7, which deals with a particular use of the product, is not of concern in these proceedings.   [...]  This construction is to be conducted in a purposive manner so as to endeavour to be fair to both the patentee and the public of the decision of Binnie J. for the Court in Whirlpool Inc. v. Camco Inc., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1067:

Montréal (City) v. Montréal Port Authority - 2007 FC 701 - 2007-07-05

This is contrary to section 6 of the CCPR and to the purpose of the PLTA, which provides for fair and equitable payments to municipalities.   [...]  The interpretation suggested by the applicant would mean that the regulation has a broader scope than the Act, which would be contrary to the purpose of the PLTA, namely, to provide for fair and equitable payments.   [...]  2.1 The purpose of this Act is to provide for the fair and equitable administration of payments in lieu of taxes.

Prairie Acid Rain Coalition v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) - 2004 FC 1265 - 2004-09-16

The triggers found in paragraphs 5(1)(a), (b), and (c) of CEAA relate to the exercise of the government's powers to act as a natural person (proponent) - (a), to spend government funds - (b), or to deal with its own property - (c).   [...]  In the Hydro-Quebec case, the NEB was dealing with an application for a licence to construct and use an international power transmission line.   [...]  But para. 16(1)(a) deals with "cumulative effects" so that, as Rothstein J. pointed out, it is "implicit in a cumulative effects assessment that both the project as scoped and sources outside that scope are to be considered."

Conseil des Innus de Pessamit v. Riverin - 2017 FC 934 - 2017-10-19

The 2010 Conseil was facing a done deal [93] The adjudicator was correct in stating that Vice‑Chief Benjamin supported Uapats by allowing it to obtain the contract with Résolu or Rexforêt, but it seems that, when he learned about the existence of a conflict of interest in June 2012, he was facing a done deal.   [...]  The evidence strongly suggests that the purpose of concealing the respondent’s interests in Uapats was to present the Conseil with a done deal: an agreement already entered into that would immediately employ members of the community to prevent the Conseil from considering other competitors.   [...]  Such facts are related to the duty to act fairly, an issue that is not disputed in this case.

ITV Technologies Inc. v. WIC Television Ltd. - 2003 FC 1056 - 2003-09-10

It also tendered a number of patents dealing with inventions for industrial television, and patents for inventions that used the letters ITV as an acronym.   [...]  [97] Distinctiveness of a trade-mark deals with whether or not the mark when used in association with the wares, distinguishes for the consumer the source of those wares.   [...]  The evidence establishes that the letters ITV were used to represent various meanings dealing with television, such as independent television, Internet televison, interactive television, and informational television.

Canada v. Obodzinsky - 2003 FC 1080 - 2003-09-19

La communication de l'avis peut se faire par courrier recommandé envoyé à la dernière adresse connue de l'intéressé.(3) A decision of the Court made under subsection (1) is final and, notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament, no appeal lies therefrom.   [...]  Consequently, the delay affected his right to present a defence and the fairness of the hearing to be held and constituted an abuse by the plaintiff.   [...]  The defendant argued that certain comments and records were inadmissible on the ground that his expert witness report made no mention of them and did not deal in any way with these records.

MF Electric Incorporated v. The King - 2023 TCC 60 - 2023-05-09

[9] I think it is fair to say that, stripped to its bare essentials, the Appellant’s position is that any false statements it made in filing its returns are attributable to Doug Rudolph with whom the MacInnises, described by counsel for the Appellant as unsophisticated, working-class, simple people, had built a long-term   [...]  [48] In cases dealing with penalties assessed under subsection 163(2), and although not an exhaustive list, the courts have considered the following personal attributes and particular circumstances to be relevant: education, intelligence, knowledge and experience of the taxpayer; the magnitude of the advantage or omission;

Campeau v. Canada - 2021 FC 1449 - 2021-12-20

Section 50(1)(a) deals with a specific circumstance when it may not be in the interests of justice to allow a proceeding to continue—namely, when the claim is being pursued in another jurisdiction.   [...]  Uniting these claims in one court would avoid the potential for inconsistent findings of fact and liability and would avoid the possibility of the Defendant paying more than its fair share of damages; and

Canada (Attorney General) v. Meng - 2020 FC 844 - 2020-08-20

[54] Counsel submit that a great deal of information regarding the manner of Ms. Meng’s arrest has already been made public and the disclosure of additional information of the same type could not likely cause injury.   [...]  [62] Counsel further submit that there is a public interest to be considered over and above the public interest in the fair trial of Ms. Meng, which includes human rights and the open court principle.

Weldemariam v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) - 2020 FC 631 - 2020-05-20

The reasonableness standard is meant to ensure that “courts intervene in administrative matters only where it is truly necessary to do so in order to safeguard the legality, rationality and fairness of the administrative process” (Vavilov at para 13).   [...]  While the case before me deals with inadmissibility pursuant to paragraph 34(1)(a) of the IRPA, rather than the relief provisions set forth in paragraph 42.1, I find that the principles set out by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in Agraira [footnote omitted] with regard to the meaning of the expression “contrary to the