Search - contravene

This contravenes The Occupational Health and Safety Act, (1993). Section 27 of the Act provides that no employer shall take discriminatory action against a worker because the worker acts or has acted in compliance with the Act or the Regulations, seeks or has sought the enforcement of the Act or the Regulations, or has assisted with the activities of an occupational health committee. ... Toward the end of his reasons (part of Exhibit A-1), the Adjudicator stated: This contravenes The Occupational Health and Safety Act (1993). ...

[emphasis added]       It is obvious that the expression “Except as expressly provided by any other Act” at the beginning of section 39 means that a law relating to prescription in a province that contravenes a provision of a federal Act cannot be relied on. ... It therefore does not contravene section 135 as it is barred from doing by section 39 of the Federal Court Act. ...

Factual and procedural contexts behind the motion [5]                The main elements of these contexts seem to be as follows: [6]                As I had the opportunity to note in my decision on December 14, 2005, the two parties are competitors in the field of wood preservatives. [7]                In an action initiated in 2002, Osmose accused Laurentide of having usurped its rights by using the trademark “Conservator”. [8]                In defence and counterclaim, Laurentide denied any infringement and argued that the Osmose trademark is invalid and must be struck. [9]                In its action, Osmose sought as remedy the profits that Laurentide may have made by its infringing actions. [10]            Not satisfied with the affidavit of documents produced in that regard by Laurentide in early 2003 following a deadline set by the Court in an order dated February 21, 2003, Osmose filed a motion on May 5, 2003, to force Laurentide to file a more complete affidavit of documents. [11]            Osmose at first bases its motion for recusal in part on my alleged statements at that hearing on May 5, 2003, and discussions for an out-of-court settlement on May 13 of the same year. [12]            The fact that I was a mediator at the time on May 13, 2003, and that I then continued to act as an adjudicator on motions allegedly also places me in a conflict of interest and allegedly led me, according to Osmose, to contravene the rule that a mediator cannot subsequently act as an adjudicator in the same case. [13]            Finally, as a third ground for recusal, Osmose cites certain paragraphs from my order on December 14, 2005, to claim that those paragraphs, by themselves or combined with the statements made on May 5, 2003, show that there is a reasonable apprehension of bias on my part. ... At that time, the Court had in mind Rule 3 of the Federal Courts Rules (the Rules) and the interests of the administration of justice. [23]            That order on May 5, and its preamble, read as follows: [translation] Motion by the applicant [Osmose] seeking: A)            An order made by the Court to have the pleadings of the respondent [Laurentide] struck in whole or in part; B)            An order to have an accurate or complete affidavit of documents served and filed by the respondent; C)            An order for the respondent to pay costs; D)            Any other order that the Court deems necessary for the applicant to be relieved of the rules of procedure that would contravene the presentation of this motion; [Rules 222, 223 and 227 paragraphs (b), (c) et (d) of the Federal Courts Rules (1998)] ORDER             The applicant’s motion is adjourned sine die.             ...

Since the Minister lacks jurisdiction to make a reassessment in respect of the return filed by the applicant outside of the normal reassessment period, Prothonotary Tabib did not err in finding that the Court could not require the Minister to contravene the Act by issuing a reassessment. ... The appeal is dismissed in respect of the Prothonotary’s decision to strike the paragraphs from the notice of application, finding that the Minister cannot be ordered to contravene the Act by making a reassessment outside of the three-year limitation period; 2.       ...