The Supreme Court of Canada released one decision this week
of interest to Canadian businesses and professions.
Construction Labour Relations v. Driver Iron Inc.
, 2012 SCC 65, the Court held the Alberta Court of Appeal erred
in quashing a decision of the Alberta Labour Relations Board on
judicial review. The Court's brief judgment criticizes
the Court of Appeal for taking an overly rigid approach to the
Board's reasons when finding that the Board failed to
consider various issues of statutory interpretation under the
Alberta Labour Relations Code.
Leave Applications Decided
The Court did not grant leave to appeal in any cases this week,
refused leave in three cases of interest.
Abdula v. Canadian Solar Inc.
, 2012 ONCA 211, concerned the extraterritorial limits of the
statutory cause of action for secondary market misrepresentations
in Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act, and in particular,
whether the Ontario Court of Appeal was correct in finding it can
be asserted against an issuer whose securities trade solely on a
foreign stock exchange. We discussed the Canadian Solar
ruling extensively in a
Carlson v. Carlson
, 2012 ABCA 173, involved a plaintiff who sued to recover on a
promissory note, in relation to a property he transferred to the
defendant which he had not disclosed during his prior
bankruptcy. The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the
plaintiff could continue with the action upon paying off his
creditors, despite the defendant's motion for summary judgment,
which was brought on the ground that the plaintiff's former
trustee in bankruptcy was the only party who could enforce rights
relating to the property.
The third case,
Teva Canada Ltd. v. Wyeth LLC
, 2012 FCA 141, dealt with a claim by a generic pharmaceutical
company (Teva) under s. 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of
Compliance) Regulations against an innovator company (Wyeth), in
circumstances where Teva was formed through the amalgamation of two
previous generic companies, Ratiopharm and Novopharm. Prior
to the amalgamation, Novopharm had sold a generic version of the
patented medicine under a licence with Wyeth, and it asked
Wyeth to prohibit Ratiopharm from selling its own generic version
of the medicine, which prohibition gave rise to the s. 8 action by
Ratiopharm (and on amalgamation, by Teva) against Wyeth. The
issue proposed to the Supreme Court was whether the Federal Court
of Appeal correctly found that Wyeth could not set off the
pre-amalgamation profits that Novopharm as Wyeth's licensee
made, from the pre-amalgamation losses that Ratiopharm had suffered
from Wyeth's prohibition application, in defending the action
It's not often that our little blog intersects with such titanic struggles as the U.S. presidential race – and by using the term "titanic" I certainly don't mean to suggest that anything disastrous is in the future.
J.J. v. C.C., is an interesting case in which the court held that an automotive garage owes a duty to minor children to secure the vehicles on the premises by locking the cars and safely storing the car keys...
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).