Advanced Search

Kang v. M.N.R. - 2005 TCC 24 - 2005-01-12

A. Because we were dealing with Bahnt [sic] but realized after that we were dealing with Manjit.   [...]  The appellant explained that although he can speak English fairly well, he does not always read with full understanding.   [...]  Therefore, I wish to deal with the following subject matters, as follows:

Vidéotron Ltée v. Konek Technologies Inc. - 2023 FC 741 - 2023-05-26

In all fairness, the plaintiffs would not be able to seek an injunction if the alleged copyright infringement stemmed from their refusal to grant such a licence.   [...]  [107] There is little case law dealing with the application of subsection 38.1(3) to electronic means of communication, and there are no decisions that support a requirement of simultaneity.   [...]  a) faire une déclaration fausse ou trompeuse tendant à discréditer l’entreprise, les produits ou les services d’un concurrent;

Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society v. Copps - 2001 FCT 1123 - 2001-10-16

The leading case dealing with sections 15 and 16 of the Act [the "scoping" authority] is a decision of this Court in Friends of the West Country Association v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans).   [...]  This is not an unusual situation as national policy guidelines and regulatory statutes seldom are formed to deal with circumstances unique to a specific location.   [...]  (2) Les terres domaniales situées dans un parc sur lesquelles des droits réels ou intérêts ont été concédés en vertu du présent article continuent à faire partie du parc et, dès qu'elles cessent de servir aux fins visées par la concession, ces terres -- ou les droits réels ou intérêts concédés sur elles -- retournent à la

Royal City Taxi Ltd. v. M.N.R. - 2019 TCC 105 - 2019-05-06

[37] With respect to the spare board system, Mr. Dmetrichuk stated that it is not a fair and equitable system.   [...]  Rather, I surmise that the Appellant learned that other taxi corporations were dealing with their drivers as independent contractors and this caused the Appellant to unilaterally begin treating the Appellant-Intervenor as an independent contractor.

Apotex Inc. v. AstraZeneca Canada Inc. - 2018 FC 181 - 2018-02-15

[27] Apotex also notes that the SCC never addressed the issues of novelty (or anticipation) and inventiveness (or obviousness), which the FCA had found unnecessary to deal with.   [...]  Doing so, it argues, would upset the balance that the Regulations are intended to strike between the protection of patent rights and the desire to reduce health care costs by permitting fair competition in the pharmaceutical market.

Cole v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2015 FCA 119 - 2015-05-05

« invalidité » La perte ou l’amoindrissement de la faculté de vouloir et de faire normalement des actes d’ordre physique ou mental.   [...]  Indeed, the Federal Court Judge did deal with the interpretation of this phrase in paragraphs 28 to 36 of his reasons when he considered the appropriate level of causal connection that was required under paragraph 21(2)(a) of the Pension Act. However, in doing so, the Federal Court Judge applied the reasonableness standard,

Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2014 FC 152 - 2013-12-04

[...] 48. [...] In Catnic, as in the earlier case law, the scope of the monopoly remains a function of the written claims but, as before, flexibility and fairness is achieved by differentiating the essential features ("the pith and marrow") from the unessential, based on a knowledgeable reading of the whole specification   [...]  The Court was dealing with a patent directed to dosages and made it clear that even if a patent claim could be construed so as to include a certain dosage that did not mean that the claim would satisfy the requirements of the Regulations:

Boroumand v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2007 FC 1219 - 2007-11-21

It is also objectively documented that Iran has strict policies with respect to drug-related offences and that the judiciary has had a “free hand” to deal with drug traffickers.   [...]   reasons for decision as a whole were simply inadequate given the significance of the decision to the Applicant, where the standard of review would be correctness given that the adequacy of reasons is a matter of fairness or natural justice[6], I am satisfied that the decision under review was made in reviewable error.

Malhi v. M.N.R. - 2005 TCC 333 - 2005-05-16

That’s her dealings. I had my own problems and my own tensions". In response to a question from the Bench as to why his wife would not work on her own land, thereby saving them up to $8,000 a season is wages, JSM stated that when he attempted to give his wife instructions it would create tension and they would begin arguing  [...]  The rest of it has fairly well been established. (h) Sahota was paid $400.00 per week by Bhatti Labourers to work on her own farm under the supervision of the Appellant, who had been hired as a supervisor;

Penn Ventilator Canada Ltd. v. The Queen - 2002-03-04

[15] The demand was to have the combined group pay $20 million in the form of a special dividend, or purchase their stock at a fair value or to cause to sell the company to a third party and liquidate the group of companies.   [...]  The Court must deal with what the taxpayer has in fact done, not what it could have done.

Mickleborough v. The Queen - 1998-08-13

The tax system has every interest in investigating the bona fides of a taxpayer's dealings in certain situations, but it should not discourage, or penalize, honest but erroneous business decisions.   [...]  I believe it is fair to say that the amount expenditures made by Terra in 1986 and the number of activities engaged in by Terra during that year were great.

Conseil des innus de Ekuanitshit c. Canada (Procureur général) - 2013 FC 418 - 2013-04-23

This is clearly a question dealing with “weighing the significance of the evidence and conclusions drawn from that evidence including the significance of an environmental effect”.   [...]  A fair amount of information already existed on the Applicant’s use of the land in the Project area (i.e. Comtois study and those of Hydro-Québec for La Romaine).   [...]  b.1) de faire en sorte que les autorités responsables s’acquittent de leurs obligations afin d’éviter tout double emploi dans le processus d’évaluation environnementale;

Skibsted v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change) - 2021 FC 416 - 2021-05-10

[104] It is correct that case law regarding what constitutes a “demand” suggests a fairly low threshold.   [...]  [121] The Respondents emphasise that because the Bank Swallow’s range is across Canada that a great deal of data gathering and consultation with other jurisdictions and interested parties is required.   [...]  As previously mentioned, the determination of whether a delay is inordinate is not based on the length of the delay alone, but on contextual factors, including the nature of the various rights at stake in the proceedings, in the attempt to determine whether the community’s sense of fairness would be offended by the delay.