Search - connection

During the period of his residency in Penetanguishene the Plaintiff was frequently required to travel to Toronto in connection with his activity as broadcaster-commentator for radio station CKEY.                                   3.      ...

Similarly, the Court reads Bernard Certain’s affidavit dated March 2, 2010 as seeking to protect the list of clients and list of questions asked in connection with what the parties call the ECAT meeting. [26] Even though, through those affidavits, Bell is essentially the subject of an indirect request to modify the protection order issued on December 29, 2008 and that it did not or was unable to produce affidavits to counter Eurocopter’s affidavits, I nevertheless ultimately grant, so as to cut short this interlocutory debate, the CEO degree of protection sought by Eurocopter, but only for the documents or information mentioned in the previous paragraph, provided that such documents or information are the subject of one or more of the questions to be answered. [27] In fact, I believe that the affidavits of Pierre Prud’homme Lacroix and Bernard Certain set out unusual circumstances sought in case law for that degree of protection (see Merck & Co. v. ...

But these are not developed in any intelligible fashion that could be recognized as a valid claim and the references to aboriginal treaty rights have no apparent connection to the remainder of the material. ...

The Case Summary was prepared in connection with the CRA’s first reply to the Applicant and the Amended Case Summary relates to the second decision, the one that maintained an exemption only with respect to a part of page 5 of the Memorandum. ...

This sum included amounts for which the Applicant could not provide receipts in connection with conducting business in Kenya, Uganda and South Africa, as well as personal use of a company vehicle. ...

This request for clarification revealed the true scope of paragraph 44 of the statement of defence, and there is just cause to now strike out paragraph 44. [19]            There is no further need to allow Danone to modify or amend this paragraph 44 of its statement of defence for the purpose of allowing a connection between Danone’s statement of defence and its counterclaim, since Danone’s counterclaim can very well be included in its statement of defence without the presence of paragraph 44. ...

I am also of the opinion that the out-of-court settlement in another infringement case between Chanel and Bijouterie Almar Inc. has absolutely no connection with the questions at issue. ...

Relevant Provisions [17]            Subparagraph 9(1)(n)(iii) of the Trade-marks Act provides: 9. (1) No person shall adopt in connection with a business, as a trade-mark or otherwise, any mark consisting of, or so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for, 9. (1) Nul ne peut adopter à l’égard d’une entreprise, comme marque de commerce ou autrement, une marque composée de ce qui suit, ou dont la ressemblance est telle qu’on pourrait vraisemblablement la confondre avec ce qui suit: […] […] (n) any badge, crest, emblem or mark n) tout insigne, écusson, marque ou emblème: […] […] (iii) adopted and used by any public authority, in Canada as an official mark for wares or services, (iii) adopté et employé par une autorité publique au Canada comme marque officielle pour des marchandises ou services, in respect of which the Registrar has, at the request of Her Majesty or of the university or public authority, as the case may be, given public notice of its adoption and use; à l’égard duquel le registraire, sur la demande de Sa Majesté ou de l’université ou autorité publique, selon le cas, a donné un avis public d’adoption et emploi; [18]            Paragraph 12(1)(e) of the Trade-marks Act provides for when trade-marks may or may not be registered: 12. (1) Subject to section 13, a trade-mark is registrable if it is not 12. (1) Sous réserve de l’article 13, une marque de commerce est enregistrable sauf dans l’un ou l’autre des cas suivants: […] […] (e) a mark of which the adoption is prohibited by section 9 or 10; e) elle est une marque dont l’article 9 ou 10 interdit l’adoption; VII.           ...

Analysis [18]            Paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Act provides that citizenship applicants bear the onus of demonstrating that they have accumulated at least three years of residence in Canada – or 1,095 days – during the relevant four-year period. [19]            This Court’s jurisprudence has recognized that Citizenship Judges are entitled to choose from among the three accepted citizenship tests (Pereira, above at para 15; Chaudhry v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 179 at para 23). [20]            The Court may not intervene unless the chosen citizenship test was applied in an unreasonable manner (Balta v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1509 at para 10). [21]            The physical presence test provided in Pourghasemi, above, is more restrictive than the qualitative residency tests elaborated in Re Papadogiorgakis [1978] 2 FC 208 (“centralized mode of living” test) and Koo (Re), [1993] 1 FC 286 (“substantial connection” test), as it requires a quantitative assessment of the number of days the Respondent has physically spent in Canada (Donohue v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 394 at para 19). [22]            In the case at hand, in applying the physical presence test found in Pourghasemi, above, the Citizenship Judge found that the Respondent was physically present in Canada for 1,093 days (Impugned Decision, Certified Tribunal Record, at pp 13 and 15). [23]            This is an unreasonable outcome which warrants the Court’s intervention. [24]            A Citizenship Judge is not entitled to simply waive the requirement of physical presence, as this would run contrary to the purpose of the Act (Pereira, above at paras 28 and 29). ...

Those facts have no connection to the self-defence argument. [28]            As a result, the Chairperson’s reasons for rejecting the applicant’s defence are unreasonable because they disregarded the relevant evidence and were based instead on irrelevant evidence. [29]            Having found that the Chairperson’s analysis was unreasonable, it is unnecessary to address the questions of procedural fairness. [30]            The decision is therefore set aside, and the case is referred back to the Tribunal to be heard by a different Independent Chairperson. ...