Yael Sarah Bienenstock

The appellants, several local governments, appealed the dismissal of their application for declarations and injunctions against Canadian National Railway Company (CN) regarding the construction of an intermodal hub.

The appellants sought to compel CN to comply with over 65 provincial and municipal laws.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding that the majority of the claims lacked a factual foundation and were premature, and that the three specific bylaws at issue impaired the core of the federal railway undertaking under the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that the construction and operation of the intermodal hub is a vital part of a federal railway undertaking and that the municipal bylaws requiring official plan amendments impaired this core federal power.

The appeal and the application for leave to appeal costs were dismissed.

The respondent requested a correction to a costs endorsement, noting the judge had mistakenly written the fee total instead of the all-inclusive total of fees, taxes, and disbursements.

The applicants objected, arguing the endorsement was clear and the issue should be raised on cross-appeal since an appeal had already been commenced.

The court corrected the transposition error, amending the costs award to the intended all-inclusive amount of $2,288,314.57, noting the Court of Appeal would prefer the corrected outcome over a cross-appeal about a typo.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants, who operate a global online lottery business and were noted in default.

The court noted that it was unclear whether the defendants had been served with the motion for default judgment.

Applying Rule 19.02(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court exercised its discretion to require the plaintiffs to serve the motion record on the defendants by registered mail, giving them 14 days to respond before the motion proceeds in writing.

The City of Hamilton appealed a decision declaring its equipment installation by-law inoperative against Canada Post's installation of community mailboxes.

The by-law imposed a moratorium and permit fees on Canada Post.

The Court of Appeal found that while the by-law's pith and substance—regulating municipal rights of way—was within provincial jurisdiction, it conflicted with the federal purpose of the Canada Post Corporation Act and its regulations, which grant Canada Post sole decision-making power over the location of mail receptacles.

The appeal was dismissed under the doctrine of federal paramountcy.

A federal Crown corporation applied for a declaration that a municipal by-law regulating the placement of community mailboxes and imposing a permit requirement and moratorium was invalid.

The court held the by-law was void for vagueness because it provided no intelligible standards guiding the director’s discretion over permit approvals.

The by-law also conflicted with federal legislation and regulations governing postal services, frustrating the federal purpose of enabling efficient mail delivery.

Applying constitutional doctrines including paramountcy, interjurisdictional immunity, and federal Crown immunity, the court found the municipality had impermissibly intruded into the federal jurisdiction over postal services.

The by-law was therefore inoperative and of no force or effect in relation to community mailboxes.

The Court considered whether a patent specification for erectile-dysfunction treatment satisfied disclosure obligations under s. 27(3) of the Patent Act where cascading claims ended with two individual compounds but did not identify the tested effective compound.

The Court held sufficiency must be assessed on the specification as a whole and not by isolating a single surviving claim under s. 58.

Because a skilled person would need further testing to determine which claimed compound worked, the specification did not enable successful use of the invention from the disclosure alone.

The appeal was allowed, the prohibition order was set aside, and the patent was held invalid for insufficient disclosure.