Christine M. Pallotta

The plaintiff appealed a Case Management Judge's order striking its statement of claim regarding copyright infringement in the TRREB MLS System.

The judge struck the claim as an abuse of process on the basis that a prior Federal Court of Appeal decision found no copyright existed in the system.

On appeal, the Court held the judge committed a palpable and overriding error by failing to require evidence that the works in question were the same, relying improperly on judicial notice.

The appeal was allowed and the plaintiff was granted leave to amend its copyright claims.

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

She argued the officer breached procedural fairness and made unreasonable findings regarding the best interests of her child and her establishment in Canada.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness and concluding the officer's assessment of the evidence was reasonable.

The applicant applied for a study permit to attend an Early Childhood Education program in Canada.

The immigration officer refused the application under s. 216(1)(b) of the IRPR, finding the applicant would not leave Canada at the end of her stay based on the purpose of her visit, limited employment prospects, current employment situation, and personal assets.

On judicial review, the Federal Court held the decision was unreasonable.

The Court found the officer failed to meaningfully engage with the applicant's detailed study plan, her evidence of family obligations to elderly parents in the UAE, and misapprehended her employment history and future plans.

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

The applicants, a family from Nigeria, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing their appeal and confirming the Refugee Protection Division's finding that they had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Benin City.

They claimed fear of persecution from extended family demanding the 13-year-old daughter undergo female genital mutilation.

The applicants argued the RAD failed to assess the minor daughter's particular circumstances under the second prong of the IFA test.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding it was the applicants' onus to provide evidence that the IFA was unreasonable, which they failed to do, and the RAD was not required to consider arguments not raised before it.

Following a summary judgment granting the plaintiff's motion in a copyright infringement action, the Court decided the issues of costs and interest.

The plaintiff sought a lump sum costs award based on 25% of its legal fees incurred.

The defendant opposed, arguing the fees were excessive.

The Court awarded the plaintiff a lump sum of $45,000 for fees and $2,851.84 for disbursements, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

The applicants, citizens of Nigeria, sought judicial review of a RAD decision confirming the rejection of their refugee claims based on the existence of viable internal flight alternatives in Port Harcourt and Benin City.

The children's claims were separated and re-opened, rendering the application moot for them.

Mr. Fagite argued the RAD erred in its IFA analysis, including by relying on a revoked Jurisprudential Guide, finding agents of persecution lacked reach, dismissing psychological evidence, and failing to assess nexus to a Convention ground.

The Federal Court found the RAD's reliance on the analytical framework of the revoked guide was reasonable, and its factual findings regarding the IFA were supported by the evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a citizen of China, sought judicial review of a RAD decision upholding the RPD's determination that she is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.

The applicant alleged a fear of persecution based on her Christian religion and domestic violence.

The RAD found her fear was not credible, largely due to a fraudulent summons.

The Federal Court found the RAD's decision was reasonable, concluding there was no error in the fraud finding, the risk assessment, or the treatment of the Gender Guidelines and sur place claim.

The applicants sought judicial review of a RAD decision dismissing their appeal and confirming they were not Convention refugees.

They alleged the RAD breached procedural fairness and made unreasonable credibility findings regarding their conversion to Christianity.

The Federal Court found the RAD did not err in refusing new evidence or breach procedural fairness.

However, the Court held the RAD unreasonably misconstrued the applicants' testimony regarding baptism and house church procedures, and failed to adequately assess corroborative evidence from a pastor.

The application for judicial review was granted.

The applicant brought a Rule 51 motion to appeal a Case Management Judge's order striking his notice of application and dismissing his motions for leave to amend.

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate any palpable and overriding error or extricable error of law in the CMJ's decision.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion appealing a case management direction, the successful defendants sought costs at the high end of Column IV of Tariff B, totaling $7,350.

The self-represented plaintiff argued against a costs award or requested a small lump sum.

The Federal Court awarded costs to the defendants but assessed them under Column III of Tariff B, noting the plaintiff's self-represented status and the procedural nature of the motion.

Costs were fixed at $2,362.50 inclusive of GST, payable in any event of the cause.

The applicant, a citizen of China claiming fear of persecution by the Public Security Bureau due to her involvement in the Church of the Almighty God, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing her appeal.

The RAD found insufficient evidence to establish she was a genuine practitioner of the faith, noting her superficial religious knowledge.

The Federal Court held that the RAD's assessment was reasonable, as it appropriately weighed her testimony against objective evidence of the Church's tenets and practices.

The applicants sought judicial review of a RAD decision confirming the RPD's determination that they were not Convention refugees due to viable internal flight alternatives in Mumbai and New Delhi.

The applicants alleged fear of persecution by a corrupt politician in Punjab.

On judicial review, they argued the RAD unreasonably refused to admit a news article published after their RPD hearing as new evidence, and that the RAD selectively assessed country condition documents.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the RAD correctly applied the statutory conditions in s. 110(4) of the IRPA by concluding the article did not arise after the rejection of their claim and was reasonably available.

The Court also held the RAD's assessment of the country conditions was reasonable and supported the finding that the politician would not be motivated to pursue the applicants across India.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment alleging the defendant, a competitor, infringed copyright in its quotation, contract, and limited warranty forms.

The Federal Court granted the motion, finding there was no genuine issue for trial.

The Court found copyright subsisted in the works as they were the product of the author's skill and judgment, and that the defendant had access to the works and substantially reproduced them.

The Court granted an injunction and awarded statutory damages of $24,000, assessed on a per-work basis rather than per-infringement.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division affirming the Refugee Protection Division's determination that he was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

The applicant alleged fear of persecution in Ghana due to his perceived sexual orientation.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness by the RPD in denying an adjournment request or in its conduct of the hearing, and holding that the RAD did not err in its credibility findings or internal flight alternative analysis.

The applicants, citizens of Togo residing in Ghana, sought judicial review of a decision refusing their application for permanent residence as members of the Convention refugee abroad class or the country of asylum class.

The Officer concluded the applicants had a durable solution in Ghana and were not Convention refugees.

The Federal Court found the Officer's decision unreasonable, as the Officer failed to justify the conclusion that the applicants were not Convention refugees and disregarded relevant evidence regarding the barriers they faced in obtaining Ghanaian citizenship and accessing services.

The application for judicial review was allowed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division affirming the rejection of his refugee claim.

The applicant, a citizen of Ghana, alleged a fear of persecution based on his sexual orientation.

The RAD upheld the Refugee Protection Division's finding that the applicant's evidence regarding his bisexuality and relationships lacked credibility due to significant inconsistencies.

The Federal Court found the RAD's credibility findings reasonable and determined there was no breach of procedural fairness regarding the treatment of corroborative evidence.

The Court also held the RAD was not required to conduct a separate section 97 analysis given the negative credibility finding.

The applicant sought judicial review of three Canadian Human Rights Commission decisions that refused to consider his complaints regarding tax audits by the CRA and patent rejections by CIPO.

The Commission dismissed the complaints as frivolous under section 41(1)(d) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, finding no link between the adverse treatment and a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The Federal Court found no breach of procedural fairness and upheld the decisions as reasonable, noting the applicant's "statistical evidence" confused correlation with causation and failed to establish any link to national or ethnic origin.

The applicant, a citizen of China, sought judicial review of an Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) decision dismissing her appeal from an exclusion order.

She was found inadmissible for misrepresentation for entering into a non-genuine marriage to obtain permanent residence.

The IAD denied her request for special relief on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The Federal Court found the IAD's decision reasonable, concluding it appropriately assessed credibility, the best interests of her child, her remorse, establishment in Canada, and hardship to her family.

The applicant appealed a Trademarks Opposition Board decision dismissing its opposition to the respondent's trademark application for "THIS WAY TO CPA".

The applicant argued the mark was unregistrable because it too nearly resembled its official mark "CPA".

The Federal Court held the standard of review was palpable and overriding error and found no such error in the Board's conclusion that the words "THIS WAY TO" adequately distinguished the marks.