Law Times

PAGE 16 CaseLawLaw FEDERAL COURT Crown ARMED FORCES Section 21(3) Pension Act (Can.) presumption not engaged where causation not established Board denied applicant disabil- ity pension on basis applicant's hearing loss and degenerative disc disease of lumbar spine did not arise out of applicant's service in Canadian Forces. Application for judicial review was dismissed. Presumption in s. 21(3) of Pension Act (Can.), was triggered by absence of evi- dence to contrary. Th ere was evidence to contrary. Appli- cant's military medical records evidenced no hearing loss in service or on discharge. Th ere was no evidence of signifi cant injury to back. Evidence in- dicated back injury that was resolved with physiotherapy. Section 21(3) presumption was not engaged unless causation was established. Applicant failed to establish causation. Applicant did not show hear- ing loss could be attributable to what occurred during time in service. Nothing in case gave rise to issues under ss. 7 or 15 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Deci- sion on back issue was not un- reasonable. Lunn v. Canada (Veterans Af- fairs) (Dec. 6, 2010, F.C., Russell J., File No. T-288-10; T-289-10) 196 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1023 (36 pp.). Debtor And Creditor ENFORCEMENT Each quotation construed as distinct transaction to which terms of payment and Plaintiff sought payment of unpaid invoices for goods and services supplied to ships un- der defendant's management. Th ere was no master agreement that regulated relationship be- tween parties. Each purchase was made on basis of punctual request for quotation. Each quotation was to be construed as distinct transaction to which terms of payment and condi- tions applied. Claim was al- lowed in part. Defendant was to pay $99,171 with simple interest at 5% beginning at specifi ed date until date of pay- ment. Calogeras & Master Supplies Inc. v. Ceres Hellenic Ship- ping Enterprises Ltd. (Dec. 22, 2010, F.C., Gauthier J., File No. T-1478-05) 196 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1032 (40 pp.). Human Rights Legislation HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Commission did not decline to exercise discretion Commission refused to con- sider applicant's complaint on basis complaint within s. 41(1) (d) of Canadian Human Rights Act because independent in- vestigator already conducted thorough investigation of ap- plicant's allegations. Applica- tion for judicial review was dismissed. Commission had jurisdiction not to deal with complaint. Decision was not unreasonable in way decision examined and relied on report to fi nd alternative redress al- ready took place and s. 41(1) (d) applied. Commission did not decline to exercise discre- tion and simply rely on previ- ous decision. Chan v. Canada (Attorney Gen- March 21, 2011 • Law TiMes Follow on www.twitter.com/lawtimes COURT DECISIONS Untitled-3 1 CaseLaw is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. CaseLaw is a weekly summary of notable unreported civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. Single or multiple copies of the full text of any case digested in this issue can be obtained by: conditions applied 5/5/10 3:55:30 PM These cases may be found online in BestCase and other electronic resources from Canada Law Book. To subscribe, please call 1-800-565-6967. i) completing and mailing in the order form in this issue; or ii) calling CaseLaw's photocopy department at (905) 841-6472 in Toronto, (800) 263-3269 in Ontario and Quebec, or (800) 263-2037 in other provinces; or iii) faxing a copy of the completed order form to (905) 841-5085. eral) (Dec. 7, 2010, F.C., Rus- sell J., File No. T-167-10) 196 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1118 (23 pp.). Immigration SELECTION AND ADMISSION Failure to explicitly articulate conclusion in terms of "unusual and undeserved, or disproportion- ate, hardship" not unreasonable Applicant was granted perma- nent residence status. Applicant was convicted of manslaughter in death of applicant's infant child. Applicant was found in- admissible. Applicant's appli- cation for permanent residence on humanitarian and compas- sionate grounds was rejected. Application for judicial review was dismissed. Motion for confi dentiality order was dis- missed. It was open to director to exercise discretion to reject application on basis there were insuffi cient humanitarian and compassionate consideration to warrant granting waiver of criminal inadmissibility. Di- rector did not err by applying wrong test in assessment. Fail- ure to explicitly articulate con- clusion in terms of "unusual and undeserved, or dispropor- tionate, hardship" was not un- reasonable. Conclusions, fi nd- ings, and observations made by director were not unreason- able. Katwaru v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (Dec. 10, 2010, F.C., Cramp- ton J., File No. IMM-1066- 10) 196 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1126 (28 pp.). Intellectual Property Industrial And PATENTS Generic drug manufacturer not entitled damages pursuant to s. 8 of Patented Medicines (NOC) Regulations (Can.) Action by generic drug manu- facturer for compensation from name-brand drug manufactur- er pursuant to s. 8 of Patented Medicines (Notice of Compli- ance) Regulations (Can.). Pat- ent was issued in 1984, and was in force until January 2001. Generic drug manufacturer claimed that it was entitled to relief for having been kept out of drug market for period be- tween April 1996 and March 1997. Action dismissed. Ge- neric drug manufacturer was not entitled damages pursuant to s. 8 of 1993 version of Regu- lations. Cause of any delay in issuing Notice of Compliance of second person was not that patent was subject of proceed- ing, but rather that patent had expired by natural end of its term or by lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees. Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. (Dec. 22, 2010, F.C., Snider J., File No. T-1169-01) 196 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1128 (22 pp.). Privacy Legislation GENERAL Applicant entitled to declara- tion that rights under PIPEDA breached and damages Applicant complained to Pri- vacy Commissioner of Canada. Applicant claimed respondent disclosed inaccurate personal information to bank in con- nection with loan application that resulted in credit history of another individual being credited to applicant. Com- missioner concluded matter was well-founded and resolved. Applicant claimed respon- dent violated Personal Infor- mation Protection and Elec- tronic Documents Act (Can.) ("PIPEDA"), and Fair Trading THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL SERVICE DIRECTORY 2011 A Comprehensive Guide for reAl estAte professionAls, 2011 All the municipal services information you need for real estate searches under one cover. With introduction and historical linkages by michael l. Young, ll.B. this handy resource helps you process your real estate transactions more efficiently, saving you time and energy. published annually, the ontario municipal service directory: A Comprehensive Guide for real estate professionals, 2011 gives you up-to-date and easily accessible municipal contact information. more thAn A direCtorY Perfectbound • March 2011 • One time purchase $89 • P/C 0517010999 • On subscription $84 • P/C 0517140999 • ISSN 1206-694X • Multiple copy discounts available Visit canadalawbook.ca or call 1.800.565.6967 for a 30-day no-risk evaluation prices subject to change without notice, to applicable taxes and shipping & handling. CANADA LAW BOOK® www.lawtimesnews.com OMSD 1-4 pg 5X.indd 1 3/7/11 4:16:59 PM Act (Alta.). Applicant sought order for procedural review of respondent's methods of work and damages. Application was allowed in part. Applicant was entitled to declaration rights under PIPEDA were breached and that respondent forwarded fi nancial information concern- ing applicant. Applicant was entitled to damages of $5,000 inclusive of humiliation ap- plicant suff ered as result of respondent's breaches. No damages were awarded for lost profi ts alleged because on evi- dence it was impossible to de- termine alleged losses without creating arbitrary valuation scheme. Federal Court did not have jurisdiction to grant remedy under Fair Trading Act which was provincial statute. Federal Court did not have jurisdiction to fi nd respon- dent to be in breach of clause 4.10 of Schedule I to PIPEDA. Clause 4.10 was not listed in s. 14 of PIPEDA. Under s. 14 of PIPEDA Federal Court did not have jurisdiction to consider matters that were not complained of to Commis- sioner or were not referred to in report. Respondent failed to meet obligations under clauses 4.6 and 4.6.1 and thus breach PIPEDA. Respondent did not breach principle 7. Procedural review sought was not neces- sary in order to determine how inaccurate information was placed on applicant's fi le. Re- spondent failed to take prompt, reasonable steps to correct re- cord. Respondent exacerbated situation through action taken and actions respondents failed to take. Nammo v. Transunion of Canada Inc. (Dec. 20, 2010, F.C., Zinn J., File No. T-246- 10) 196 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1175 (38 pp.).

• Cover
• Victorious Worker
• Mysterious Payment
• Focus On Restructuring & Insolvency