Simon Fothergill

The applicant, a citizen of Sudan residing in Saudi Arabia, sought judicial review of a migration officer's refusal of his application for permanent residence as the spouse of a protected person in Canada.

The officer concluded the marriage was not genuine based on limited cohabitation, staged wedding photos, and inconsistencies during the interview, particularly regarding the applicant's knowledge of his spouse's history.

The Federal Court held that the officer's credibility determinations were reasonable and supported by the evidentiary record from the interview and WhatsApp communications.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

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

She claimed hardship based on financial support to family in the Philippines and establishment in Canada.

The Officer found insufficient evidence of financial hardship and noted her prolonged stay without legal status.

The Federal Court held the Officer's decision was reasonable, concluding that the Officer adequately assessed the evidence and the economic situation in the Philippines.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Canada Labour Code adjudicator's decision dismissing her complaint of unjust dismissal.

The adjudicator had found her dismissal for incompetence justified, inferring from emails that she implicitly understood her job was in jeopardy.

The Federal Court held the adjudicator's decision unreasonable.

The inference that the applicant knew her job was in jeopardy was not supported by the evidence and relied on a significant factual error regarding the timing of her response.

Furthermore, binding jurisprudence requires explicit warnings and progressive discipline before dismissal for incompetence, which the employer failed to provide.

The application was allowed, and the adjudicator's decision set aside.

The applicant sought judicial review of a visa officer's refusal of her application for a work permit as a live-in caregiver.

The officer doubted the genuineness of the employment offer based on the prospective employers' limited financial resources but did not provide the applicant with prior notice of this concern before her interview.

The Federal Court held that the decision was procedurally unfair because the applicant was not given a meaningful opportunity to address the officer's subjective concerns regarding the employers' financial ability to pay her salary.

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

The plaintiffs in three proposed class proceedings concerning the unlawful interception of communications by the Correctional Service of Canada brought unopposed motions in writing.

They sought orders designating Acheson Sweeney Foley Sahota LLP as class counsel and prohibiting the commencement of any other proposed class proceeding regarding the same allegations without leave.

The Court granted the requested "Heyder Order," concluding it would protect ongoing settlement discussions, promote judicial economy, and prevent inconsistent decisions.

In a proposed class proceeding regarding the use of the Custody Rating Scale by the Correctional Service of Canada, the Defendant Attorney General of Canada moved to extend the time to file its Statement of Defence until after the disposition of the certification motion.

The Federal Court granted the motion, finding that preparing the defence before certification would require substantial resources that might be duplicated or wasted if the claims were later reformulated or not certified, and that the plaintiffs would suffer no prejudice.

The Applicants sought the appointment of a special advocate or security-cleared amicus curiae in relation to an upcoming motion by the Attorney General for the non-disclosure of information in a supplemental certified tribunal record.

The Applicants argued that inadvertent disclosure of information and resulting injunctive relief justified the appointment.

The Court found that the duty of fairness owed to the Applicants remained at the lower end of the spectrum and the circumstances did not justify a departure from a previous ruling denying a similar request.

The motion for the appointment was dismissed, and the Attorney General was ordered to specify the grounds for the different redactions.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's patent infringement action, the successful defendants sought their costs.

The Federal Court declined to award a lump sum based on actual fees, instead awarding costs to both defendants in accordance with the high end of Column IV of Tariff B, with double costs applied after the dates of their respective settlement offers.

Post-judgment interest was set at 2.5%.

The applicants, citizens of Mexico, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division confirming they had an internal flight alternative in Mexico City.

The applicants claimed fear of the Zetas and Gulf Cartel.

The Federal Court found the RAD reasonably concluded the applicants did not demonstrate an ongoing motivation by the cartels to search for or harm them in Mexico City.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Canadian Human Rights Commission not to deal with her discrimination complaint against Transport Canada.

The Commission declined to deal with the complaint under s. 41(1)(e) of the Canadian Human Rights Act because it was filed out of time and the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The Federal Court found the Commission's decision to be reasonable as the applicant provided no explanation for the four-year delay after her last grievance was concluded.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

This decision assesses the costs and disbursements payable to the successful defendant, MEG Energy Corp., following the dismissal of a patent infringement claim.

The defendant sought a lump sum award of nearly $2 million, representing 40% of its actual fees.

The Court declined to order a lump sum, noting the plaintiffs were impecunious inventors and the defendant had needlessly complicated the litigation.

Costs were instead fixed at the high end of Column V of Tariff B. The Court further capped the defendant's recoverable expert fees due to duplication in their evidence.

On an informal motion on consent, the Federal Court approved an order requiring Canada to fund a supplemental notice program in a class action settlement.

The parties agreed to the supplemental notice program in Winter/Spring 2021 due to delays in the claims process caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Canada will provide up to an additional $100,000 to fund the program.

The applicants sought judicial review of a RAD decision concluding they were not Convention refugees due to the existence of internal flight alternatives in Nigeria.

Before the RAD, they only argued relocation would be objectively unreasonable.

On judicial review, they raised new arguments unsupported by evidence or not previously presented.

The Court held new arguments cannot be raised for the first time on judicial review and found the RAD's decision reasonable.

The Defendant Attorney General of Canada brought motions to strike the plaintiff's Statements of Claim in two actions, without leave to amend.

The plaintiff, a lawyer, had commenced multiple proceedings based on delusional claims of being targeted by security agencies and former romantic partners.

The Court found that the current actions were egregious attempts to circumvent prior rulings that had struck similar claims in an earlier proceeding without leave to amend.

The Court struck the Statements of Claim in their entirety without leave to amend, concluding they constituted an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant for patent infringement regarding a method of heavy oil recovery involving steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD).

The Federal Court held that the defendant's operations did not infringe the patent claims because the fluid injection volumes were insufficient to generate a large singular zone of increased mobility as required by the patent.

Furthermore, the court declared the asserted claims invalid on the grounds of anticipation by prior art and inutility.

The applicants, multinational engineering firm Parsons Corporation and its Canadian subsidiary, brought an application against the respondent for passing off under s. 7(b) of the Trademarks Act.

The respondent had registered a fraudulent website purporting to be that of the applicants and used it to solicit personal information from prospective employees in a phishing scam.

The respondent did not participate in the proceedings.

The Federal Court found that an application was the appropriate procedure, that the applicants possessed a valid trademark with established goodwill in Canada, and that the respondent's wilful misrepresentations caused actual or potential damage.

The Court granted declaratory and injunctive relief, ordered the transfer of the domain name, and awarded $25,000 in damages and $30,000 in costs.

The plaintiffs, current or former inmates of a federal penitentiary, sought to certify a class action alleging poor quality of cable television services for which they paid.

They claimed negligence and breach of constructive trust against the Crown.

The Federal Court denied the motion for certification, holding that the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and that the inmate grievance process was the preferable procedure for resolving the complaints.