Jocelyne Gagné

In this motion within a judicial review application regarding firearms regulations, the self-represented applicants sought leave to file a supplementary affidavit containing new evidence.

The Court dismissed the motion, finding that the new documents were not before the original decision maker, were irrelevant to the issues under review, and would not assist the Court or serve the interests of justice.

In a proposed class proceeding, the Defendant moved to strike three expert affidavits filed in the Plaintiffs' reply record on certification.

The Court struck the affidavit of Dr. Drogin, finding it introduced a new damages methodology that constituted improper case-splitting.

The Court declined to strike the affidavit of Mr. Anand, finding it was properly responsive to jurisdiction issues raised by the Defendant.

The Court granted the Plaintiffs leave under Rule 52.4 to file Mr. Anand's affidavit as an additional expert, noting the public significance of the proceeding.

No costs were awarded.

The applicants, a family from Colombia, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision rejecting their refugee claim on the basis of an internal flight alternative in Colombia.

They alleged fear of persecution from local gangs and a national cartel.

The Federal Court held that the RAD reasonably found insufficient evidence linking the local gang to the national cartel and did not err in applying a balance of probabilities to assess whether agents of harm would search for the applicants.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision rejecting his application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The Federal Court found that the officer's failure to consider the impact of removal on the applicant's mental health rendered the decision unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted for redetermination.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision rejecting their application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

They argued the officer failed to properly assess the best interests of their young children and gave insufficient weight to their establishment in Canada and the hardship of returning to Nigeria.

The Federal Court held the officer reasonably assessed the children's best interests and reasonably found that the hardship factors raised were generalized country conditions in Nigeria.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants, who are impoverished and disabled Pakistani nationals, sought judicial review of a visa officer's decision refusing their temporary resident visa applications.

The officer was not satisfied they would leave Canada at the end of their stay due to their strong family and financial ties to Canada and lack of ties to Pakistan.

The Federal Court found the officer's decision was reasonable, noting that the applicants had strong emotional and financial ties in Canada and no real financial incentive to return to Pakistan.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing his refugee claim based on the availability of an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Santa Barbara, Honduras.

The Federal Court found the RAD's decision unintelligible because it failed to distinguish between the city of Santa Barbara and the remote farm location in assessing the IFA test.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter sent back for redetermination.

The applicant, a 62-year-old American citizen with a criminal history, sought judicial review of a senior immigration officer's refusal of his application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The officer gave substantial negative weight to the applicant's criminal history and overstaying his visa, while finding that the best interests of his two-year-old Canadian daughter and potential hardship in the US did not warrant an exception.

The Federal Court found the officer's decision reasonable, noting the applicant's burden to submit evidence and the exceptional nature of H&C relief.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a Syrian actor, sought judicial review of a decision refusing his application for permanent residence in the Self-employed Persons category.

The officer concluded there was insufficient evidence of the applicant's intent or ability to be self-employed in Canada, noting his basic English, lack of French, and failure to demonstrate sufficient Arabic acting work.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness and holding that the officer's assessment of the applicant's language proficiency and the lack of evidence of job opportunities was reasonable.

The plaintiffs sued the Crown and several public officials for misfeasance in public office, alleging they unlawfully reclassified the plaintiffs' firearms as prohibited and demanded compliance.

The defendants moved to strike the claim, and the plaintiffs moved to remove the Attorney General as counsel for the personal defendants due to a conflict of interest.

The Federal Court granted the motion to strike in part, striking claims for de facto expropriation, Charter violations, interference with economic relations, and negligence because they lacked material facts.

However, the court refused to strike the misfeasance claims, finding the pleadings sufficient for that cause of action.

The plaintiffs' conflict motion was dismissed as premature.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision of the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal, which refused leave to appeal the General Division's decision.

The General Division had refused to rescind or amend its earlier decision denying the applicant a full old age security pension.

The applicant had accumulated only 25 of the 40 years of residence in Canada required for a full pension.

The applicant argued that the residency requirement violated s. 15 of the Charter, but failed to file a Notice of Constitutional Question.

The Court found that the Appeal Division reasonably concluded the appeal had no reasonable chance of success, as the applicant presented no new material facts to the General Division and did not meet the cumulative requirements for a full pension.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Canadian Human Rights Commission decision refusing to deal with his discrimination complaint against his union.

The Commission determined the complaint was vexatious under paragraph 41(1)(d) of the Canadian Human Rights Act because the Canada Industrial Relations Board had previously dealt with the same allegations.

The Federal Court found the Commission reasonably exercised its discretion, noting the Board had fully considered the same evidence and facts.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal granting him leave to appeal regarding his Old Age Security pension.

The respondent brought a motion to strike the application on the basis that it was moot and an abuse of process, as the applicant had already obtained a reconsideration decision from Service Canada and had filed a subsequent judicial review in the Federal Court of Appeal regarding the Appeal Division's final decision.

The Federal Court granted the motion to strike, concluding that allowing the application to proceed would violate principles of judicial economy and finality, and that striking the application would not make the applicant's issues evasive of review.

The Privacy Commissioner brought a reference to the Federal Court regarding the application of PIPEDA to Google's search engine.

A complainant alleged Google contravened PIPEDA by displaying links to sensitive news articles when his name was searched.

The Court answered two reference questions.

First, the Court held that Google collects, uses, and discloses personal information in the course of commercial activities when indexing and displaying search results, as every component of its business model is commercial.

Second, the Court held Google's search engine service is not excluded from PIPEDA under the journalistic exemption, as its primary purpose is not journalistic, and certainly not exclusively journalistic.

The Court concluded PIPEDA applies to Google's search engine operations.

The applicants challenged the validity of certain firearm regulations and sought to be relieved from costs awards made against them on previous motions, arguing they were public interest litigants.

The Federal Court dismissed the request, finding the applicants had a substantial personal and proprietary interest in the outcome of the litigation and were therefore not pure public interest litigants.

The self-represented plaintiff, previously declared a vexatious litigant in Alberta, brought an action in the Federal Court against numerous provincial defendants, including a Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench and Calgary police officers.

The defendants moved to strike the claim.

The Federal Court granted the motions to strike without leave to amend, holding it had no jurisdiction over the provincial actors and that the pleadings were frivolous, vexatious, and scandalous.

However, the Court dismissed the defendants' motions to declare the plaintiff a vexatious litigant under s. 40 of the Federal Courts Act because they had not obtained the required consent of the Attorney General of Canada.

These two jointly case-managed proceedings relate to the Privacy Commissioner's investigation into Facebook's involvement in the Cambridge Analytica data misuse scandal.

In the Commissioner's PIPEDA Application, Facebook brought a motion to strike large portions of the principal affidavit filed by the Commissioner.

In the parallel judicial review application brought by Facebook, the Commissioner brought a motion to strike the application in its entirety, alleging it was out of time and that PIPEDA provided an adequate alternative remedy.

The Federal Court granted Facebook's motion in part, striking certain paragraphs that relied on academic and news articles for the truth of their contents, while permitting the bulk of the evidence as contextual background.

The Court dismissed the Commissioner's motion to strike the judicial review, holding that the jurisdictional and procedural fairness issues raised by Facebook were not clearly bereft of success and should be determined at the hearing on the merits.

In multiple applications for judicial review challenging the 2020 firearms ban regulations, the applicants sought documentary disclosure from the Governor in Council under Rule 317 of the Federal Courts Rules.

The respondent objected on the basis of Cabinet confidentiality but failed to issue a certificate under section 39 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The Court held that without a valid certificate, the statutory absolute protection from review was not triggered.

Instead, the common law applied, requiring the Court to review the documents to balance the public interest in disclosure against confidentiality.

The Court ordered the respondent to file the materials under seal for the Court's review.

The Applicants sought leave under Rule 302 of the Federal Courts Rules to pursue judicial review of multiple decisions in respect of which relief is sought, specifically challenging up to 600 individual technical opinions made by the RCMP adding firearms to the Firearms Reference Table.

The Court dismissed the motions, finding the Applicants failed to specify which technical opinions they wanted to review, thereby running afoul of Rule 301(c)(ii) and preventing the Court from determining the matters under review or exercising its discretion to make a Rule 302 exception.

Merck sought to impeach Wyeth's composition and formulation patents relating to the Prevnar 13 pneumococcal conjugate vaccine.

The Court found that the composition patent claims were valid but limited to 13 serotypes, as the invention was neither anticipated nor obvious given the complexities of conjugation and immune interference.

However, the Court invalidated the formulation patents, finding that the use of surfactants, buffers, and aluminum salts to stabilize formulations in siliconized containers was obvious in light of prior art, and the specific 13-valent claims were invalid for obviousness-type double patenting.