Canadian Federal Court of Appeal says that there is no need to consider all potential uses of a mark in opposition proceedings

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 270-271
Author(s):  
Emir Crowne
Keyword(s):  
Federal Court ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Englander v. Telus: Protection of Privacy in the Private Sector Goes to the Federal Court of Appeal

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc-Aurele Racicot
Keyword(s):  
Private Sector ◽  
Personal Information ◽  
Information Age ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Personal Life ◽  
Information Protection ◽  
Public Places ◽  
Electronic Documents ◽  
Full Force ◽  
Court Of Appeal

These days, is there a topic more significant and provocative than the protection of privacy in the private sector? The importance of this topic has been highlighted since the Canadian Parliament adopted the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act which came into full force on 1 January 2004 and which is scheduled for review in 2006. Although it seems that everywhere we turn, the word "privacy" and its companion PIPEDA are at centre stage, many say that this attention is unwarranted and a knee-jerk reaction to the information age where one can run but cannot hide. Like it or not, we are subject to the prying eyes of cameras in public places, the tracking and trailing of Internet activities, the selling of address lists and other such listings, and the synthesizing by marketers of frightful amounts of personal information that, when pulled together, reveals a lot about our personal life, our ancestry, our relationships, our interests and our spending habits.

scholarly journals Alternative Fact? More Democratic States Are More Likely to Provide Refugee Protection

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Perryman
Keyword(s):  
Country Of Origin ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Protective Mechanisms ◽  
Refugee Protection ◽  
Determination Process ◽  
Individualized Approach ◽  
Refugee Claimant ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
State Protection

Democracy is explicitly engaged in two aspects of the Canadian refugee determination process: state protection findings and Designated Country of Origin determinations. Democracy is also implicitly engaged in the selection of countries as so-called “safe countries.” This article reviews the literature on measuring the level of democracy in a given state, and the empirical evidence linking this level to a state’s willingness and ability to provide adequate protection to its citizens. The article argues that the Federal Court of Appeal was misguided in taking judicial notice of a correlation between the level of democracy in a given state and its ability to provide state protection. The article also reviews and questions the use of “democratic governance” as a factor in Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s Designated Country of Origin regime, as well as the implicit use of democracy in designating the United States as a “safe” country under the Safe Third Country Agreement. The article contends that the time has come to reconsider how democracy measurements are used in Canada’s refugee determination process, and advocates for an individualized approach to state protection determinations: one that eschews the alternative fact presumption of a connection between democracy and protection, and instead focuses on the protective mechanisms available to a refugee claimant based on their unique circumstances.

scholarly journals Personal Tax Planning: Due Diligence Defence to Liability for Unpaid Statutory Remittances

2020 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
pp. 281-312
Author(s):  
Wayne D. Gray
Keyword(s):  
Pension Plan ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Objective Standard ◽  
Employment Insurance ◽  
Outside Director ◽  
Withholding Taxes ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Several potentially onerous liabilities may be imposed on directors outside the provisions of the statute under which their corporation is incorporated or continued. In particular, some of the most common sources of personal liability for directors arise under statutes requiring the corporation to pay employee payroll source deductions (income tax, Canada Pension Plan contributions, and employment insurance premiums), withholding taxes owing by non-residents of Canada, and net goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax remittances. These statutory regimes all have certain features in common, including a statutory due diligence defence. This article examines the state of the law under the objective standard of care first adopted in the tax context by the Federal Court of Appeal in <i>Buckingham</i>. In particular, it examines the principles that guide jurisprudence on the due diligence defence, the factual circumstances that have met with success or failure for appellants, and how the defences apply differently depending on whether a director is an inside or outside director.

scholarly journals Conacher Missed the Mark on Constitutional Conventions and Fixed Election Dates

2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (1, 2 & 3) ◽  
pp. 2010
Author(s):  
Andrew Heard
Keyword(s):  
Prime Minister ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Court Case ◽  
Election Law ◽  
Constitutional Convention ◽  
Federal Election ◽  
High Profile ◽  
Constitutional Conventions ◽  
The Law ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Given the fundamental role that conventions play in the Canadian constitution, it is not surprising that litigants try from time to time to engage the courts in defining or even enforcing the terms of a particular convention. The Federal Court’s September 2009 decision in Conacher v. Canada (Prime Minister)1 is the latest high-profile example. Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch, had launched a court case that challenged the 2008 federal election call as contravening either the provisions of the government’s fixed-date election law (Bill C-16,2 passed in 2007), or conventions supporting the law. The Federal Court rejected Conacher’s application, holding among other things that there was no constitutional convention constraining the prime minister from advising an election before the October 2009 date prescribed in the statute. Conacher’s appeal was also rejected. In May 2010, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision, stating that "no such convention exists" based on the evidentiary record.3 For many observers, the Conacher decision may seem unsurprising and solidly based on the existing jurisprudence dealing with constitutional conventions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document