DOCSLIB.ORG

CANADIAN CASES on EMPLOYMENT LAW Fourth Series/Quatri`Eme S´Erie Recueil De Jurisprudence Canadienne En Droit Du Travail

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CANADIAN CASES on EMPLOYMENT LAW Fourth Series/Quatri`Eme S´Erie Recueil De Jurisprudence Canadienne En Droit Du Travail CANADIAN CASES ON EMPLOYMENT LAW Fourth Series/Quatri`eme s´erie Recueil de jurisprudence canadienne en droit du travail VOLUME 10 (Cited 10 C.C.E.L. (4th)) EDITOR-IN-CHIEF/REDACTEUR´ EN CHEF M. Norman Grosman, B.SC., LL.B. Grosman, Grosman & Gale LLP Toronto, Ontario ASSISTANT EDITORS/ADJOINTS A` LA REDACTION´ Robert Bonhomme, D.E.C., B.L.L. Michael J. Weiler, B.A., LL.B. Heenan Blaikie LLP Boughton Law Corporation Montr´eal, Qu´ebec Vancouver, British Columbia Malcolm J. MacKillop, B.A., LL.B. Matthew L.O. Certosimo, B.A.(HONS.), Shields O’Donnell MacKillop LLP LL.B. Toronto, Ontario Borden Ladner Gervais Toronto, Ontario Magali Cournoyer-Proulx, D.E.C., LL.B. Heenan Blaikie LLP Montr´eal, Qu´ebec CARSWELL EDITORIAL STAFF/REDACTION´ DE CARSWELL Cheryl L. McPherson, B.A.(HONS.) Director, Primary Content Operations / Directrice des activit´es li´ees au contenu principal Catherine Bennett, B.A., LL.B., LL.M. Product Development Manager Nicole Ross, B.A., LL.B. Andrea Andrulis, B.A., LL.B., LL.M. Supervisor, Legal Writing Acting Supervisor, Legal Writing Mike MacInnes, B.A.(HONS.), LL.B. Jocelyn Cleary, B.A.(HONS.), LL.B. Lead Legal Writer Senior Legal Writer Stephanie Hanna, B.A., M.A., LL.B. Lisa Rao, B.SC., LL.B. Senior Legal Writer Senior Legal Writer Amanda Stewart, B.A.(HONS.), LL.B. Martin-Fran¸cois Parent, LL.B., LL.M., Senior Legal Writer DEA (PARIS II) Bilingual Legal Writer Melissa Dubien Content Editor Torrance v. Canada (Attorney General) 169 [Indexed as: Torrance v. Canada (Attorney General)] Attorney General of Canada Appellant and Rodney Torrance Respondent Federal Court of Appeal Docket: A-514-12 2013 FCA 227 Marc Nadon, J.D. Denis Pelletier, Johanne Gauthier JJ.A. Heard: September 19, 2013 Judgment: September 27, 2013 Tax –––– General principles — Miscellaneous –––– Worker was bike courier who was rendered quadriplegic and did not work thereafter — Worker was de- nied disability pension as records indicated he had made sufficient CPP contri- butions in only two years from 1993 to 1998 — Worker had not filed tax returns for 1996, 1997, or 1998 — Department of Human Resources Development Can- ada (HRDC) acknowledged RT’s request to leave his file open and set no time limits for filing tax returns — Worker filed 1996 tax returns, and HRDC re- quested more information, without time limits — Later, HRDC sent letter set- ting 45-day deadline for financial information, but letter was not delivered due to error — HRDC denied worker’s application, and correspondence was re- turned — Worker showed sufficient contributions — Minister’s delegate refused to award pension to which he was otherwise entitled absent administrative er- rors — Worker’s application for judicial review granted and matter remitted for reconsideration — Trial judge found Minister’s delegate’s decision never specif- ically dealt with issue of misaddressed communications — Trial judge found worker’s culpability in not sending HRDC notice of his change of address was not determinative — Trial judge found that due to administrative error in trans- position of postal code, worker was denied opportunity to seek reconsideration and to remedy filing deficiencies, which resulted in denial of his opportunity for pension — Unreasonable administrative error had occurred — Attorney General appealed — Appeal allowed — Original application for judicial review dis- missed and judgment of federal court set aside — Trial judge properly identified reasonableness standard of review but did not properly apply it — Trial judge did not examine Minister’s decision and record, including detailed analysis in appeal book, with view to determining if Minister’s decision fell within range of acceptable outcomes — Trial judge erred in substituting his reasoning for Min- ister’s, and in effect applied correctness standard — Plan officials did not have complete picture of worker’s contributory history when they denied his claim, but no administrative error occurred — Worker did not follow up on his claim for seven years and as result, further delay in making decision to deny benefits 170 CANADIAN CASES ON EMPLOYMENT LAW 10 C.C.E.L. (4th) would not have changed outcome since worker was not attending to his claim — Plan officials felt sufficient time had elapsed to allow worker to file his income tax returns — When officials received medical information which confirmed that date of disability was outside his minimum qualifying period, they did not require any further medical information to conclude that he was ineligible for benefits. Pensions –––– Federal and provincial pension plans — Federal pension plans — Canada Pension Plan benefits — Disability pension — Miscellane- ous –––– Worker was bike courier who was rendered quadriplegic and did not work thereafter — Worker was denied disability pension as records indicated he had made sufficient CPP contributions in only two years from 1993 to 1998 — Worker had not filed tax returns for 1996, 1997, or 1998 — Department of Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) acknowledged RT’s request to leave his file open and set no time limits for filing tax returns — Worker filed 1996 tax returns, and HRDC requested more information, without time limits — Later, HRDC sent letter setting 45-day deadline for financial information, but letter was not delivered due to error — HRDC denied worker’s application, and correspondence was returned — Worker showed sufficient contributions — Minister’s delegate refused to award pension to which he was otherwise entitled absent administrative errors — Worker’s application for judicial review granted and matter remitted for reconsideration — Trial judge found Minister’s dele- gate’s decision never specifically dealt with issue of misaddressed communica- tions — Trial judge found worker’s culpability in not sending HRDC notice of his change of address was not determinative — Trial judge found that due to administrative error in transposition of postal code, worker was denied opportu- nity to seek reconsideration and to remedy filing deficiencies, which resulted in denial of his opportunity for pension — Unreasonable administrative error had occurred — Attorney General appealed — Appeal allowed — Original applica- tion for judicial review dismissed and judgment of federal court set aside — Trial judge properly identified reasonableness standard of review but did not properly apply it — Trial judge did not examine Minister’s decision and record, including detailed analysis in appeal book, with view to determining if Min- ister’s decision fell within range of acceptable outcomes — Trial judge erred in substituting his reasoning for Minister’s, and in effect applied correctness stan- dard — Plan officials did not have complete picture of worker’s contributory history when they denied his claim, but no administrative error occurred — Worker did not follow up on his claim for seven years and as result, further delay in making decision to deny benefits would not have changed outcome since worker was not attending to his claim — Plan officials felt sufficient time had elapsed to allow worker to file his income tax returns — When officials re- ceived medical information which confirmed that date of disability was outside his minimum qualifying period, they did not require any further medical infor- mation to conclude that he was ineligible for benefits. Torrance v. Canada (Attorney General) 171 Pensions –––– Federal and provincial pension plans — Federal pension plans — Judicial review –––– Worker was bike courier who was rendered quadriplegic and did not work thereafter — Worker was denied disability pen- sion as records indicated he had made sufficient CPP contributions in only two years from 1993 to 1998 — Worker had not filed tax returns for 1996, 1997, or 1998 — Department of Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) ac- knowledged RT’s request to leave his file open and set no time limits for filing tax returns — Worker filed 1996 tax returns, and HRDC requested more infor- mation, without time limits — Later, HRDC sent letter setting 45-day deadline for financial information, but letter was not delivered due to error — HRDC de- nied worker’s application, and correspondence was returned — Worker showed sufficient contributions — Minister’s delegate refused to award pension to which he was otherwise entitled absent administrative errors — Worker’s appli- cation for judicial review granted and matter remitted for reconsideration — Trial judge found Minister’s delegate’s decision never specifically dealt with issue of misaddressed communications — Trial judge found worker’s culpabil- ity in not sending HRDC notice of his change of address was not determina- tive — Trial judge found that due to administrative error in transposition of pos- tal code, worker was denied opportunity to seek reconsideration and to remedy filing deficiencies, which resulted in denial of his opportunity for pension — Unreasonable administrative error had occurred — Attorney General ap- pealed — Appeal allowed — Original application for judicial review dismissed and judgment of federal court set aside — Trial judge properly identified reason- ableness standard of review but did not properly apply it — Trial judge did not examine Minister’s decision and record, including detailed analysis in appeal book, with view to determining if Minister’s decision fell within range of ac- ceptable outcomes — Trial judge erred in substituting his reasoning for Min- ister’s, and in effect applied correctness standard — Plan officials did not have complete picture of worker’s contributory history when they denied his claim, but no administrative error occurred — Worker did not follow up on his claim for seven years and as result, further delay in making decision to deny benefits would not have changed outcome since worker was not attending to his claim — Plan officials felt sufficient time had elapsed to allow worker to file his in- come tax returns — When officials received medical information which con- firmed that date of disability was outside his minimum qualifying period, they did not require any further medical information to conclude that he was ineligi- ble for benefits. Cases considered by J.D. Denis Pelletier J.A.: Bartlett v.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • LAW Symposia Booklet out 2006
    UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA FACULTY OF LAW INTERNATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW SYMPOSIA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN GLOBAL MAINSTREAM PRACTICE FRIDAY, JULY 14, 2006 SATURDAY, JULY 15, 2006 UBC Robson Square and the Terminal City Club, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada For detailed and updated information, go to www.ipint.org. St. Peter’s College, University of Oxford and Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre at St. Peter’s I am pleased to welcome you to the 2006 International Intellectual Property Law Symposium in Vancouver, British Columbia. With links to technology, communications and global commerce, IP law and policy lie at the heart of the information economies of the 21st century. As such, IP issues have become increasingly important both to commercial law generalists, who must be able to identify the scope and effect of these issues within their practice, and ROBERT HOWELL to IP specialists, who are called upon to grapple with advanced aspects of the subject area. This Symposium seeks ACADEMIC DIRECTOR to address the needs of both groups. INTERNATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW SUMMER PROGRAM Distinguished speakers from the judiciary, practice, government and academe will discuss contemporary issues PROFESSOR at the cutting edge of IP law development. We are particularly UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA, FACULTY OF LAW fortunate this year to have Justice Louis LeBel of the Supreme Court of Canada delivering our keynote address. We are also delighted to welcome, among others, recently appointed Professor Robert Howell has been with the Faculty of Law Supreme Court of Canada Justice Marshall Rothstein and at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada Canada’s Competition Commissioner Sheridan Scott.
    [Show full text]
  • ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REPORTS Fifth Series/Cinqui`Eme S´Erie Recueil De Jurisprudence En Droit Administratif
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REPORTS Fifth Series/Cinqui`eme s´erie Recueil de jurisprudence en droit administratif VOLUME 91 (Cited 91 Admin. L.R. (5th)) EDITORS-IN-CHIEF/REDACTEURS´ EN CHEF David Phillip Jones, Q.C., Anne S. de Villars, Q.C., C. ARB., B.A.(HONS.) (MCGILL),C. ARB., B.SC. (HONS.) (SOUTHAMPTON), B.C.L., M.A.(OXON.) LL.B.(ALBERTA) de Villars Jones Barristers and Solicitors Edmonton, Alberta QUEBEC EDITOR/REDACTEUR´ POUR LE QUEBEC´ Denis Lemieux, LL.L., D. EN D. Facult´e de droit, Universit´e Laval Qu´ebec, Qu´ebec ASSOCIATE EDITOR/REDACTEUR´ ADJOINT Andrew J. Roman, B.A.(MCGILL), LL.B.(OSGOODE HALL) Miller, Thomson Toronto, Ontario ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REPORTS, a national series of topical law re- Recueil de jurisprudence en droit administratif, une s´erie nationale de ports, is published 12 times per year. Subscription rate $482.00 per bound recueils de jurisprudence sp´ecialis´ee, est publi´e 12 fois par ann´ee. volume including parts. Indexed: Carswell’s Index to Canadian Legal L’abonnement est de 482 $ par volume reli´e incluant les fascicules. Indexa- Literature. tion: Index a` la documentation juridique au Canada de Carswell. Editorial Offices are also located at the following address: 430 rue St. Pierre, Le bureau de la r´edaction est situ´e a` Montr´eal — 430, rue St. Pierre, Mon- Montr´eal, Qu´ebec, H2Y 2M5. tr´eal, Qu´ebec, H2Y 2M5. ________ ________ © 2015 Thomson Reuters Canada Limited © 2015 Thomson Reuters Canada Limit´ee NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER: All rights reserved. No part of this publica- MISE EN GARDE ET AVIS D’EXONERATION´ DE RESPON- tion may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any SABILITE´ : Tous droits r´eserv´es.
    [Show full text]
  • IMMIGRATION LAW REPORTER Third Series/Troisi`Eme S´Erie Recueil De Jurisprudence En Droit De L’Immigration VOLUME 96 (Cited 96 Imm
    IMMIGRATION LAW REPORTER Third Series/Troisi`eme s´erie Recueil de jurisprudence en droit de l’immigration VOLUME 96 (Cited 96 Imm. L.R. (3d)) EDITORS-IN-CHIEF/REDACTEURS´ EN CHEF Cecil L. Rotenberg, Q.C. Mario D. Bellissimo, LL.B. Barrister & Solicitor Ormston, Bellissimo, Rotenberg Don Mills, Ontario Toronto, Ontario Certified Specialist Certified Specialist ASSOCIATE EDITOR/REDACTEUR´ ADJOINT Randolph Hahn, D.PHIL.(OXON), LL.B. Guberman, Garson Toronto, Ontario Certified Specialist CARSWELL EDITORIAL STAFF/REDACTION´ DE CARSWELL Jeffrey D. Mitchell, B.A., M.A. Director, Information Management and Manufacturing Directeur, service d’´edition et de production Graham B. Peddie, LL.B. Product Development Manager Sharon Yale, LL.B., M.A. Julia Fischer, B.A.(HON.), LL.B. Supervisor, Legal Writing Acting Supervisor, Legal Writing Peter Bondy, B.A.(HON.), LL.B. Heather Stone, B.A., LL.B. Lead Legal Writer Lead Legal Writer Rachel Bernstein, B.A.(HON.), J.D. Peggy Gibbons, B.A.(HON.), LL.B. Legal Writer Senior Legal Writer Molly Grindley, B.SC. (HON.), LL.B., Stephanie Hanna, B.A., M.A., LL.B. LL.M. Senior Legal Writer Senior Legal Writer Mark Koskie, B.A.(HON.), M.A., LL.B. Martin-Fran¸cois Parent, LL.B., Legal Writer LL.M., DEA (PARIS II) Bilingual Legal Writer Nicole Ross, B.A., LL.B. Amanda Stewart, B.A.(HON.), LL.B. Legal Writer Senior Legal Writer Erin McIntosh, B.A.(HON.) Content Editor IMMIGRATION LAW REPORTER, a national series of topical law reports, Recueil de jurisprudence en droit de l’immigration, une s´erie nationale de is published twelve times per year.
    [Show full text]
  • CANADIAN MILITARY LAW SENTENCING UNDER the NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT." PERSPECTIVES and MUSINGS of a FORMER SOLDIER Colonel (Ret.) Me Michel W
    39 1 CANADIAN MILITARY LAW SENTENCING UNDER THE NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT." PERSPECTIVES AND MUSINGS OF A FORMER SOLDIER Colonel (Ret.) Me Michel W. Drapeau' Ottawa The Canadian Charter ofRights and Freedoms recognizes the existence of the militaryjustice system and its own tribunals operating in parallel to the Canadian criminal law system. Yet, there continues to be an absolutepaucity of any reference works on military law and members of the Canadian military bar are seldom heard or read. This article aims atfilling the void, at least in part. In writing this article, the author, who servedfor 34 years in general staff and command positions in the Canadian Forces, had two general purposes in mind: a) to present the general reader with a general overview ofthe history, customs, organization, and structure ofthe military personnel system, and b) to provide a reference work presenting a detailed view ofthe Code ofMilitary Discipline, both in its contents and its workings. Finally, in light ofthe extensive changes in 1999 to the National Defence Act and the accompanying regulations, the author concludes by reviewing the nature and impact of each of the punishments that may be imposed by a military tribunal or the Court Martial Appeal Court ofCanada to those who are subject to the Code ofService Discipline. La Charte canadienne des droits et libertés reconnaît la eo-existence d'un système de justice militaire avec ses propres tribunaux en parallèle avec le droit pénal canadien. Cependant, même si de nombreux livres ont décrit et interprété l'histoire militaire canadienne, il existe présentement aucun ouvrage sur le droit militaire et les praticiens de ce droit se font que très rarement entendre.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Court of Appeal Cour D'appel Fédérale
    Federal Court of Appeal Cour d'appel fédérale Date: 20110308 Docket: A-175-10 Citation: 2011 FCA 83 CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NOËL J.A. TRUDEL J.A. BETWEEN: EASTON SPORTS CANADA INC. Appellant and BAUER HOCKEY CORP. and NIKE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Respondents Heard at Montréal, Quebec, on January 24, 2011. Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 8, 2011. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: NOËL J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. TRUDEL J.A. Federal Court of Appeal Cour d'appel fédérale Date: 20110308 Docket: A-175-10 Citation: 2011 FCA 83 CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NOËL J.A. TRUDEL J.A. BETWEEN: EASTON SPORTS CANADA INC. Appellant and BAUER HOCKEY CORP. and NIKE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Respondents REASONS FOR JUDGMENT NOËL J.A. [1] We have before us an appeal and a cross-appeal from a judgment of Gauthier J. of the Federal Court (the Trial Judge), wherein she held that Easton Sports Canada Inc. (Easton) infringed Canadian Patent No. 2302935 (the ‘953 Patent) which relates to a skate boot. The Trial Judge also concluded that Easton induced a third party manufacturer, Les Chaussures Rock Forest Inc. (Rock Forest), to infringe the ‘953 Patent. Page: 2 [2] In support of its appeal, Easton submits that the Trial Judge erred in failing to find that the ‘953 Patent is invalid based on obviousness and anticipation. In the alternative, Easton submits that the Trial Judge’s conclusion that it induced Rock Forest to infringe the ‘953 Patent was reached in error. [3] In support of its cross-appeal, Bauer Hockey Corp.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the Subcommittee on Global Review of the Federal Courts Rules
    Subcommittee on Global Review of the Federal Courts Rules Le sous-comité sur l’examen global des Règles des Cours fédérales Report of the Subcommittee Justice David Stratas (Chair of the Subcommittee) ● Chantelle Bowers (Secretary to the Subcommittee) Andrew Baumberg ● Professor Denis Ferland ● Justice Johanne Gauthier ● Justice Roger Hughes ● Peter Hutchins Robert MacKinnon ● John Morrissey ● Justice Donald Rennie ● Cecily Strickland ● Prothonotary Mireille Tabib ● Professor Janet Walker Subcommittee on Global Review of the Federal Courts Rules Le sous-comité sur l’examen global des Règles des Cours fédérales October 16, 2012 To the Rules Committee: We are pleased to present our report. Our report consists of eight parts. At the end of many of these parts, we set out findings and recommendations. In all, we have made 26 findings and recommendations. The subcommittee is unanimous or nearly unanimous on each. For your convenience, a complete list of our findings and recommendations – in effect, an executive summary of this report – appears at the end of this report. Respectfully submitted for your consideration, The subcommittee - i - Index PART I – Background.................................................................................1 Origin of the subcommittee............................................................. 1 Composition of the subcommittee................................................... 2 Mandate of the subcommittee......................................................... 2 How the subcommittee discharged its mandate
    [Show full text]
  • Rapport Annuel 2015-2016
    RAPPORT ANNUEL 2015 | 2016 S'ADAPTER AU CHANGEMENT SOMMAIRE LE BARREAU 2 Le Conseil 3 Le rapport de la btonnire 4 Le rapport de la directrice gnrale 6 LA PROFESSION 12 Les comits 13 Les activits 42 Les services 48 LE PUBLIC 50 Les activits 51 Les services 54 LES PRIX ET HOMMAGES 56 La Mission Promouvoir la protection du public, par des activits d'information et de sensibilisation, par une participation active l'administration de la justice et par la dfense de la rgle de droit. 1 BARREAU BARREAU 1 DE MONTRÉAL Le Barreau de Montral Compos de plus de 14 000 avocats, le Barreau de Montral est l'un des plus grands barreaux du monde et le deuxime barreau francophone en importance. Comptant plus de 165 ans d'histoire, il fait figure de proue dans la recherche de l'excellence en matire d'thique et de comptence. BåTONNIER DE PéRE EN FILLEÉ* LES MEMBRES DU CONSEIL DE GAUCHE Ë DROITE : Assis : Me Catherine Fugre-Lamarre, reprsentant le Jeune Barreau de Montral, Me Simon Tremblay, premier conseiller, Madame la btonnire Magali Fournier, Me Tiberiu Hollnder, conseiller. Debout : Me Alexandra Popa, conseillre, Me Michel P. Synnott, conseiller, Me Robin Schiller, conseillre, Me Nancy Cleman, conseillre, Me Suzanne Gagn, conseillre, Me Philippe Dcary, conseiller, Me Marie-France Veilleux, conseillre, Me Paul-Matthieu Grondin, secrtaire, et Me Doris Larrive, directrice gnrale. NÕapparait pas sur la photo : Me Brian Randall Mitchell, trsorier. *Pour une première fois dans l’histoire du Barreau de Montréal, il y avait un lien très étroit entre la personne qui est devenue bâtonnière en mai 2015 et un ancien bâtonnier.
    [Show full text]
  • Rapport Annuel 2013-2014
    [2013.14] RAPPORT ANNUEL LES PRIX LE BARREAU 2 LA PROFESSION 12 LE PUBLIC 50 ET HOMMAGES 56 Le Conseil 3 Les comits 13 Les activits 51 Le rapport Les activits 42 Les services 54 du btonnier 4 Les services 48 Le rapport de la directrice gnrale 6 SOMMAIRE LA MISSION Promouvoir la protection du public, par des activits d'information et de sensibilisation et par une participation active l'administration de la justice. 1 BARREAU BARREAU DE 1 MONTRÉAL LE BARREAU DE MONTRAL Compos de plus de 13 500 avocats, le Barreau de Montral est l'un des plus grands barreaux du monde et le deuxime barreau francophone en importance. Comptant plus de 160 ans d'histoire, il fait figure de proue dans la recherche de l'excellence en matire d'thique et de comptence. LES MEMBRES DU CONSEIL DE GAUCHE Ë DROITE : Me Doris Larrive, directrice gnrale, Me Philippe Dcary, conseiller, Me Nancy Cleman, trsorire, Me Simon Tremblay, conseiller, Me Marie-France Veilleux, conseillre, Me Luana Ann Church, reprsentant l'Association du Jeune Barreau de Montral (et Annette), Monsieur le btonnier Luc Deshaies, Me Nathalie Chalifour(1), conseillre, Me Marie Cousineau, secrtaire, Me liane B. Perreault(2), conseillre, Me Laurent Soustiel, conseiller (et Marcel), Me Magali Fournier, conseillre et Me Tiberiu Hollnder, conseiller. N'apparat pas sur cette photo : Me Greg Moore, premier conseiller. (1) Jusqu'à sa nomination comme juge à la Cour du Québec le 29 janvier 2014. (2) Jusqu'à sa nomination comme juge à la Cour supérieure le 17 décembre 2013. 2 - 3 BARREAU DE MONTRÉAL LE RAPPORT DU BåTONNIER Chères consœurs, Chers confrères, Nous avons amorcé l’année, le 8 mai dernier, avec un Conseil composé de sept femmes et six hommes, une première dans les 160 ans d’histoire du Barreau de Montréal.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 Fca 186 Coram: Noël Ja Pelletier Ja Gauthier Ja
    Date: 20130724 Docket: A-7-12 Citation: 2013 FCA 186 CORAM: NOËL J.A. PELLETIER J.A. GAUTHIER J.A. BETWEEN: SANOFI-AVENTIS Appellant and APOTEX INC. Respondent BETWEEN: SANOFI-AVENTIS and BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB SANOFI PHARMACEUTICALS HOLDING PARTNERSHIP Appellants and APOTEX INC. APOTEX PHARMACHEM INC. and SIGNA SA de CV Respondents Page: 2 Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on January 28, 2013. Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on July 24, 2013. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: PELLETIER J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: NOËL J.A. CONCURRING REASONS BY: GAUTHIER J.A. Date: 20130724 Docket: A-7-12 Citation: 2013 FCA 186 CORAM: NOËL J.A. PELLETIER J.A. GAUTHIER J.A. BETWEEN: SANOFI-AVENTIS Appellant and APOTEX INC. Respondent BETWEEN: SANOFI-AVENTIS and BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB SANOFI PHARMACEUTICALS HOLDING PARTNERSHIP Appellants and APOTEX INC. APOTEX PHARMACHEM INC. and SIGNA SA de CV Respondents Page: 2 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT PELLETIER J.A. INTRODUCTION: [1] Plavix is a very successful anti-coagulant drug which was developed, patented, and marketed by the appellant, Sanofi-Aventis (Sanofi). Apotex Inc. (Apotex), a well known manufacturer and distributor of generic drugs, attempted to create and market its own version of the active ingredient in Plavix, clopidogrel bisulfate (clopidogrel). It applied for a Notice of Compliance from the Minister of Health, alleging that its version of clopidogrel did not infringe Sanofi’s patent which, it alleged, was invalid in any event for a number of reasons, including obviousness. Sanofi responded by applying to the Federal Court for an order prohibiting the Minister from issuing the Notice of Compliance to Apotex.
    [Show full text]
  • 2001 CMI Yearbook .Pdf 1.97 MB
    YEARBOOK 2001 ANNUAIRE CMI YEARBOOK 2001 3 Table of contents TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I - Organization of the CMI PAGE NO. Constitution 10 Rules of Procedure 28 Guidelines for proposing the election of Titulary and Provisional Members 31 Headquarters of the CMI 32 Members of the Executive Council 32 President ad Honorem and Honorary Vice Presidents 34 Management Functions 35 Member Associations 39 Temporary Members 82 Members Honoris Causa 83 Titulary Members 83 Consultative Members 111 PART II - The Work of the CMI CMI 37th Conference Singapore 11-17 February 2001 Officers of the Conference 119 List of Attendance 120 Opening Session - Opening speech of the President of the CMI 171 - Address by Prof. David J. Attard, Director, IMLI 175 - Opening address by Prof. S. Jayakumar, Minister for Law and Minister for Foreign Affairs 177 Agenda of the Conference 181 Issues of Transport Law - Report of Committee A 182 - Resolution of the Conference 188 4 CMI YEARBOOK 2001 Table of contents Marine Insurance - Discussion Paper 189 - Report to the Plenary Session 203 - Resolution of the Conference 211 General Average - Report to the Plenary Session by the International Working Group 212 - Resolution of the Conference 213 Model National Law on Acts of Piracy and Maritime Violence - Report on the Conference Session 214 - Resolution of the Conference 223 Implementation and Interpretation of the 1976 LLMC Convention - Report of the Working Group 224 - Resolution of the Conference 230 - Report to IMO 231 Passengers Carried by Sea - Limitation against passenger
    [Show full text]
  • Yearbook 2009 Annuaire
    YEARBOOK 2009 ANNUAIRE ATHENS II Documents of the Conference TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I - Organization of the CMI PAGE NO. Constitution 8 Rules of Procedure 34 Guidelines for proposing the election of Titulary and Provisional Members 37 Headquarters of the CMI 38 Members of the Executive Council 38 Honorary Officers 43 Standing Committees 45 International Working Groups 46 International Sub-Committees 46 Member Associations 47 Temporary Members 91 Members Honoris Causa 92 Titulary Members 92 Consultative Members 119 PART II - The work of the CMI I ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR THE ATHENS CONFERENCE PROCEDURAL RULES RELATING TO LIMITATION OF LIABILITY IN MARITIME LAW 124 Letter of Gregory Timagenis dated October 1st, 2008 enclosing: – the actual text of the Draft Guidelines and 126 – a Digest of the comments by the National Associations 134 II CONFERENCE DOCUMENTS OPENING OF THE 39TH CMI CONFERENCE Speech of the President of the CMI, Jean-Serge Rohart 153 CMI YEARBOOK 2009 3 Table of contents PLACES OF REFUGE Introduction by the Chairman, by Stuart Hetherington 158 Annex 1: Policies of the United States Coast Guard and national response team, by Lizabeth L. Burrell 163 Annex 2: An Instrument on Places of Refuge From a Ports’ Perspective, by Frans van Zoelen 181 Annex 3: Places of Refuge for Ships in Distress - the P & I Insurer’s perspective, by Andrew Bardot 196 Annex 4: Places of refuge, by Archie Bishop 201 Annex 5: Places of Refuge, by Fritz Stabinger 204 Annex 6: Notes on Clauses of Draft Instrument on Places of Refuge, by Richard Shaw 208
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Court Cour Fédérale
    Federal Court Cour fédérale Date: 20110712 Docket: T-83-10 Citation: 2011 FC 859 Ottawa, Ontario, July 12 , 2011 PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Johanne Gauthier BETWEEN: SANOFI PASTEUR LIMITED Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent AMENDED CONFIDENTIAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT [1] The applicant, Sanofi Pasteur Limited [Sanofi] seeks judicial review of part of the decision of the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board [the Board] 1 dealing with the remedy granted with respect to the excessive prices it charged between 2002 and 2006 that is a payment in the amount of $2,512,878.74 to Her Majesty the Queen pursuant to subsection 83(2) of the Patent Act , RSC 1985, c P-4 [the Act ]. 1 Original decision issued December 21, 2009, amended on March 1, 2010 and implemented by order issued March 16, 2010. Page: 2 [2] The applicant raised several issues which, for reasons described below, are not founded, such as: a. That the Board erred by imposing a penalty pursuant to subsection 83(2) of the Act , b. That it fettered its discretion by relying blindly upon the Compendium of Guidelines, Policies and Procedures [the Guidelines] and past Board decisions with respect to the offsetting of excess revenues in the context of subsection 83(2) of the Act . [3] It also argued that the Board had abused its power under subsection 83(2) of the Act by ignoring the evidence and the particular circumstances of its case and making findings that are based on pure speculation. It was agreed that these issues are to be reviewed on the reasonableness standard.
    [Show full text]