Search - connection

However, I would say that since in a trial de novo facts may be disclosed which were not brought to the attention of the customs officer when he made his decision, it is necessary to proceed with care when the time comes to decide whether the customs officer validly found a breach of the Act or its Regulations. [11]      In this connection, I would note at once certain facts disclosed at the hearing in this Court but which the customs officer did not know when he made his decision to seize the vehicle, namely (a) Essex Sports Car Inc. in fact had nothing to do with the transaction; (b) the signatures of S. ...

  [9] First, whether they are questions of a technical nature or arising out of the interpretation of the patent in dispute directed at the inventors and for which experts will be called upon to provide their opinion at the trial; questions relating to the marketing and implementation, by Eurocopter, of a helicopter landing gear assembly; questions regarding the date when Eurocopter learned about various parts and how that occurred; questions in connection with the damages and profits claimed by Eurocopter; questions regarding prosecution of the patent in dispute (including obtaining correspondence with the patent agents and the internal prosecution file); or other questions for which the Prothonotary sustained Eurocopter’s objections, Bell Helicopter has not satisfied me that the Prothonotary’s order involves questions that have a decisive influence over the outcome of the case ...

Lastly, questions 17 to 19 apparently have no connection with the alleged infringement in this case and would therefore not be relevant. ...

In her decision, Madam Justice L’Heureux‑Dubé explicitly recognized that the H&C decision is an important one since it not only affects the future of individuals’ lives in a fundamental manner, but “it may also have an important impact on the lives of any Canadian children of the person whose humanitarian and compassionate application is being considered, since they may be separated from one of their parents and/or uprooted from their country of citizenship, where they have settled and have connections” (paragraph 15). ...

Background [4] It appears that, in July 2007, JYGA brought a action for patent invalidity (patent 2,556,959, hereinafter patent ‘959) under section 60 of the Patent Act given that it was facing threats of infringement by the defendants in connection with patent ‘959 that the defendants had apparently obtained for a computerized pig-feeding system. [5] According to JYGA, some former employees of JYGA, namely Mr.  ...

(Emphasis added) [15]            It should be quickly noted in passing here that although in the Superior Court the applicant appears to only challenge the decision from September 7, 2004, the Federal Court of Appeal, in the same decision cited above, clearly sees a connection between this decision from September 7, 2004, and the decision from December 17, 2004. ...

The Court considers that there is a sufficient connection between the primary cause of action and the cause of action of the counterclaim to maintain this counterclaim against Eclipse Canada and Trio Selection Inc. [14]            However, with regard to the directors of these two corporations, Eclipse Canada and Trio Selection Inc., namely the six (6) individuals who also appear in the style of cause as defendants by counterclaim, the situation warrants, as mentioned earlier, that the Court intervene. [15]            I think that to assess the situation, it is necessary to apply, mutatis mutandis, the principles referred to by this Court when a party seeks to implicate the personal liability of corporate officers in an intellectual property matter. [16]            In Dolomite Svenska Aktiebolag v. ...

Furthermore, there is sufficient connection between the Applicants (particularly Nesathurai) and Welton Parent Inc. to make them privies. ...

Beaucage did not make the connection between Mr. Beauchamp’s illness and the instructions given to his accountants. ...

In this respect, the RPD’s decision appears, in this case, to be the result of reasonable inferences and thus satisfies the standard of reasonableness. [13]            The applicant also criticized the RPD for having breached the rules of procedural fairness by failing to provide advance notice of its intention to use its specialized knowledge in connection with the medical certificate that she submitted as evidence. ...