Federal Court tackles suits filed against CRA, Canada Border Services Agency
This week, the Federal Court dealt with matters involving issues of worker lockdown benefits, the deregistration of a political party, the international transfer of an offender’s sentence, and rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Federal Court
On Monday, the court heard Brychka v. Canada Revenue Agency, T-1642-22. This judicial review application raised the issue of eligibility for the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit. The applicant wanted to be released from repaying money to the Canada Revenue Agency.
On Tuesday, the court heard Dua et al v. Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, T-1086-23. The applicants challenged the Chief Electoral Officer’s decision to deregister the Direct Democracy Party of Canada based on noncompliance with its triennial obligation under s. 407(2) of the Canada Elections Act, 2000.
The applicants asked the court to stay this decision’s effects pending the determination of their judicial review application. On June 23, in McNair v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer), 2023 FC 888, the Federal Court dismissed the request for a stay. It found that they failed to satisfy the tripartite test in RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General), 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC), [1994] 1 SCR 311.
Also on Tuesday, the court heard Elliott v. Minister of Public Safety, T-889-22. The applicant pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud in a U.S. district court and received a two-year incarceration sentence.
The applicant asked Canada’s public safety minister to process his application to transfer his sentence to this country under the International Transfer of Offenders Act, 2004 and to consider it without delay.
On Tuesday, the court heard Ramoutar v. Canada Border Services Agency et al, T-1835-17. The plaintiff, a Canadian citizen and Toronto resident, sought damages for alleged breaches of Charter rights, for negligence resulting in injuries and suffering, for misfeasance in public office, and for intentional and/or reckless arrest.
Upon returning from a trip to Jamaica, officers of the Canada Border Services Agency detained her, strip-searched her when there were no reasonable grounds to believe that she had any contraband, demanded stool samples, and subjected her to abusive verbal attacks and humiliating treatment, the plaintiff claimed.
Also on Tuesday, the court heard Chakhnashvili v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, IMM-8074-21. This application for leave and judicial review challenged the refusal of the applicant’s permanent residence application under the spouse or common-law partner class.
In May 2022, in Chakhnashvili v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 CanLII 41572 (FC), the Federal Court stayed the removal of the applicant from this country. It found that the applicant met the tripartite conjunctive test in Toth v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1988 CanLII 1420 (FCA) for a stay pending the application’s determination.
On Tuesday, the court heard Rovi Guides, Inc. V. BCE Inc. et al, T-1184-21. The plaintiff brought the underlying patent infringement action against BCE Inc., Bell Canada, Bell Media Inc., Bell Expressvu Limited Partnership, Northerntel, L.P., Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson, Ericsson Canada Inc., MK Systems USA Inc., and MK Mediatech Canada Inc.
The relevant patents involved digital entertainment technologies including the Interactive Program Guides and its features. The guides allowed users to find programming, to navigate from one channel or source to the next, and to search for, record, and remotely view content.
In June 2022, in Rovi Guides, Inc. v. BCE Inc., 2022 FC 979, the Federal Court dismissed the appeal of the defendants challenging certain decisions of the case management judge.
On Wednesday, the court heard Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd. et al v Pharmascience Inc., T-15-22. The plaintiffs filed an action under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133.
The plaintiffs redacted information from documents before their disclosure to the defendant. The defendant alleged that the redactions were improper and asked the court to compel unredacted versions.
Last April, in Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd. v Pharmascience Inc., 2023 FC 584, the Federal Court ordered the plaintiffs to produce a version of the documents removing most of the redactions made based on relevance. However, it found that the plaintiffs appropriately redacted certain parts to comply with European data protection legislation and to maintain patent agent and solicitor-client privilege.
