Advanced Search

MIPS AB v. Bauer Hockey Ltd. - 2018 FC 485 - 2018-05-07

[103] In addition, article 7 of the NDA signed by the parties on March 17, 2011 (JBD-324) deals with their respective intellectual property:   [...]  Unless otherwise stated in the Project Order, the specific Project test reports to be issued by MIPS thereunder will become the property of the Bauer Group upon issuance, subject to the provisions of Section 5.3 below [dealing with MIPS technology and improvement thereto].   [...]  [132] The Patent Act and the purposive construction mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Free World Trust v Électro Santé Inc (2000 SCC 66 at paras 30-31) require adherence to the language of the claims, which promotes fairness and predictability.

Lin v. Uber Canada Inc. - 2024 FC 977 - 2024-06-24

[62] I will first deal with the legislative provision. [63] I accept that section 7 of the Ontario Consumer Protection Act constitutes a specific legislative override.   [...]  [127] Ultimately, in order to establish inequality of bargaining power to the point of unconscionability, one must be at a point “where the law’s normal assumptions about free bargaining either no longer hold substantially true or are incapable of being fairly applied” (Heller SCC at para 72).   [...]  To establish inequality of bargaining power to the point of unconscionability, one must be at a point “where the law’s normal assumptions about free bargaining either no longer hold substantially true or are incapable of being fairly applied” (Heller SCC at para 72).

Loblaws Inc. v. Columbia Insurance Company - 2019 FC 961 - 2019-07-22

[94] As an initial point, Loblaw argues that there is some overlap in the parties’ channels of trade, in that there is evidence of both selling its products through booths at public events such as trade shows and fall fairs.   [...]  In my view, the evidence indicates that trade shows and fall fairs are sufficiently immaterial to both companies’ business that their occasional participation in such events is immaterial to the confusion analysis.   [...]  A great deal of the evidence and argument at trial surrounded the use by Pampered Chef and its ICs of social media to attract customers and effect sales.

Les Plastiques Algar (Canada) Ltée v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue) - 2004 FCA 152 - 2004-04-06

Les enquêtes spéciales ont aussi la responsabilité de faire connaître au public les condamnations judiciaires dans le but de décourager l'évasion fiscale chez les autres contribuables et de favoriser les divulgations volontaires."   [...]  At paragraphs 112 to 122 of her Reasons, she deals with the issue of whether a clear decision to pursue a criminal investigation had been made at the time the Requirements were sent and, at paragraphs 118 and 122, she makes the following remarks:   [...]   de preuve de la perpétration d'une infraction à la présente loi, à saisir ces documents ou choses et, dès que matériellement possible, soit à les apporter au juge ou, en cas d'incapacité de celui-ci, à un autre juge du même tribunal, soit à lui en faire rapport, pour que le juge en dispose conformément au présent article.

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. White (Beast IPTV) - 2023 FC 907 - 2023-06-28

Mr. White was specifically warned that multiple judgments and orders had been issued by Canadian courts that provide for injunctive relief and important damage awards in cases dealing with the unauthorized dissemination of works owned by the major motion picture studios and other rightsholders that MPA-Canada represented.   [...]  [101] As stated by the Supreme Court in Parranto at para 10: “The goal in every case is a fair, fit and principled sanction.

McAlpin v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) - 2018 FC 422 - 2018-04-19

Conceptually, it is possible that the decision to deny Leave was made on the basis that no fairly arguable issue had been raised in respect of the Delegate’s concurrence with the officer’s assessment of the new information that had been provided by Mr. McAlpin, in support of his reconsideration request.   [...]  It is not the function of the immigration officer, when deciding whether or not to prepare a report on inadmissibility based on paragraph 36(2)(a) grounds, or the function of the Minister’s delegate when he acts on a report, to deal with matters described in sections 25 (H&C considerations) and 112 (Pre-Removal

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.

Thibodeau v. Air Canada - 2005 FC 1156 - 2005-08-24

Farley J. determined that the CPO is the appropriate forum for dealing with the monetary portion of the claim, but that the non-monetary aspects should be heard by the Federal Court.   [...]   is not entitled to counsel fees, Lavigne v. Minister of Human Resources Development, FCA, Docket A-104-97 (T-1977-94), subsection 400(4) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, might "to a certain extent . . . satisfy, what fairness could dictate in that respect", as the Honourable Mr. Justice Marceau says in paragraph [2].

Medexus Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Accord Healthcare Inc. - 2024 FC 424 - 2024-03-26

[93] Rather than addressing the parties’ arguments on ‘about 50 mg/ml’ in this section, I will address them in the section dealing with the ambiguity ground of invalidity.   [...]  [219] In any event, on the question of motivation, I find Dr. Massarotti’s views are actually fairly close to those of Dr. Roth.   [...]  The defendants have not persuaded me that the skilled person would be unable to define ‘about 50 mg/ml’ with sufficient precision so as to be fair to both the patentee and the public.

Biofert Manufacturing Inc. v. Agrisol Manufacturing Inc. - 2020 FC 379 - 2020-03-13

So it’s a company that is dealing with alive fertilizers. Living, plants, crops” (pages 386–387).   [...]  a) faire une déclaration fausse ou trompeuse tendant à discréditer l’entreprise, les produits ou les services d’un concurrent;   [...]  c) faire passer d’autres produits ou services pour ceux qui sont commandés ou demandés;

Canada (National Revenue) v. Ghermezian - 2022 FC 236 - 2022-02-23

They are also the foundation of fairness in the adjudicative process.   [...]  This is the foundation of fairness. This factor militates against admission of the affidavit.   [...]  In that context, I note the Respondents’ submission that this principle does not permit Mr. Bowe to provide testimony about the various dealings of members of the Ghermezian family.

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.

Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Teva Canada Limited - 2017 FC 88 - 2017-01-30

I am satisfied that those circumstances would not have prevailed in 2006 and, therefore, that Teva would have obtained its listing on the BC formulary fairly promptly had it obtained its NOC on March 3, 2006.   [...]  He explained that an adjustment to retail data would be appropriate to deal with the issue of timing – the delay between manufacture and retail sales.