Guardian Law Group, Strosberg Sasso Sutts, Sotos involved in class actions in federal courts roundup
This week’s roundup includes firms such as Guardian Law Group, Strosberg Sasso Sutts, and Sotos in Federal Court for proposed class actions involving allegations of systemic discrimination against First Nations children. The Federal Court also heard cases concerning a labour dispute, allision of barges, patent and trademark infringements, and immigration and refugee law. Taxation and intellectual property lawsuits were heard at the Federal Court of Appeal.
Federal Court
The Federal Court heard multiple proposed class actions alleging that the Crown has systematically discriminated against First Nations children by knowingly underfunding child and family services for children living on reserves and in the Yukon. Further, the Crown’s practice of underfunding prevention services and fully funding out-of-home care allegedly created an incentive on the part of child welfare service agencies to remove children from their homes and place them in out-of-home care. Some notable firms involved in these proposed class actions were Guardian Law Group LLP, Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP, and Sotos LLP.
The Crown was further involved in a class action alleging concealment of information surrounding the deaths of children that attended the Indian Residential School System. Children were allegedly forcibly removed from their homes and, once enrolled in the Residential Schools, were subjected to harsh discipline, malnutrition, starvation, physical, emotional, psychological and sexual abuse, and neglect. The plaintiffs claimed that these Residential Schools were most often operated by various churches in partnership with the federal government. The proposed class representative, Floyd Good Eagle, is a survivor of the Crowfoot Indian Residential School located near Cluny, AB, and on the lands of the Siksika Nation. Guardian Law Group appeared as counsel of the representative plaintiff.
CaleyWray Lawyers represented Darryl Dafoe in a lawsuit against Transport Canada and Canadian National Railway Company. While working as locomotive engineer for Canadian National Railway, Dafoe invoked his right to refuse dangerous work under the Canada Labour Code. He expressed genuine concerns over the rampant spread of the Omicron variant of COVID-19. Dafoe challenged Transport Canada’s decision to not investigate Dafoe his work refusal, its finding that the work refusal was frivolous, and its failure to address the risks associated with the Omicron variant.
Jenelle Mack Lindsay LLP acted as counsel for Vancouver Harbour Flight Centre in its claim for damages amounting to approximately $200,000. The action arose from an incident when two barges broke loose from their moorings in North Vancouver, BC. The barges drifted across Vancouver Harbour and struck the Coal Harbour Marina and the Vancouver Flight Centre, causing damage to its dock and wave fences.
In patent infringement lawsuits, some notable firms which appeared in court were DLA Piper LLP for Tetra Tech and for Videotron Ltd., Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP for Pavemetrics Systems Inc., Bereskin & Parr LLP for Arysta Lifescience North America LLC, Miller Thomson LLP for Agracity Crop & Nutrition, and Lenczner Slaght LLP for Rovi Guides Inc.
In a lawsuit involving trademark infringement, Travel Leaders Group LLC was represented by Osler Hoskin & Harcourt, while Baker Law Firm acted for 2014293 Ontario.
In the area of immigration and refugee law, the law firms appearing in court this week include Lebeau Law Corporation, Bondy Immigration Law, Lithwick Law, Yallen Associates, Waldman & Associates, Kaminker & Associates, Lee & Company, Jackman & Associates, Racine Law Firm, Battista Smith Migration,
Federal Court of Appeal
Sprigings represented Sandoz Canada against Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada, which was represented by McCarthy Tetrault LLP. The case stemmed from a 2019 action filed by Bristol-Myers against Sandoz Canada, seeking a declaration that its product would infringe Bristol-Myers’ patent.
EY Law LLP acted for Carvest Properties Limited in its appeal from the judgment of the Tax Court of Canada dismissing Carvest’s requests for reassessments. Carvest argued that the tax court judge committed an error in law by failing to correctly apply the legal principles in determining the fair market value of 89 leased apartment units located in Richmond Street in London, Ontario.
