The Federal Court found the Respondent liable for trademark infringement, passing off and depreciation of goodwill, and granted injunctions, delivery up, domain transfer, damages and costs.
The Receivership Funds Agreement did not substantially alter the landscape of the Condominium Action because its salient terms (receivership, insurer subrogation and cooperation obligations, and the insurer's undertaking to complete certain remedial work potentially using receiver funds) were already disclosed in the pleadings and correspondence; therefore immediate disclosure was not required and LHR's application for a stay or dismissal as an abuse of process was dismissed.
Seal's application for security for costs was dismissed because he failed to demonstrate Mansfield would be unable to pay his costs on appeal and Mansfield showed the appeal was reasonably or fairly apparent to have merit; additionally, the court noted that intervenor costs are not routinely awarded and must be justified, so ordering security was not warranted.
The Federal Court dismissed the MPCC’s judicial review applications, holding OPS conduct-complaint investigations are not policing duties or functions and disclosure was not compelled for the public interest investigation.
Court of Appeal set aside a Rule 30.10 production order against Tribunals Ontario, finding the requested tribunal records were not shown to be probative or necessary.
Registrar's report is approved; on the evidence there is a real risk that existing equity in other properties will not satisfy the judgment and the petitioner faces prejudice from further dilution, therefore the court ordered sale of the non‑residence Gaba Properties (144 Street and 49 Avenue) with exclusive conduct by the petitioner and sale by realtor, dispensed COEA advertising, while deferring sale of the Principal Residence for four months under s.96(2) COEA due to hardship and valuation uncertainty, with liberty to reapply thereafter.
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of an IRCC refusal under the Home Child Care Provider Class, finding the officer reasonably concluded the job offer was not genuine.
After weighing the Descheneaux factors the court concluded Canada did not meet the heavy burden to justify a six‑month extension: although there has been legislative movement and ISC administrative steps, the legislative path and timetable remain uncertain, concrete harm to some BC residents would result from further delay, and ISC mitigation does not justify prolonging the suspension; accordingly the application to extend the suspension was dismissed and only the brief interim extension remains in effect.
The Federal Court dismissed Mr. Moulton’s judicial review of a VRAB appeal decision on hypertension entitlement, finding the four-fifths award reasonable and no procedural unfairness.