3,190 results found

The Supreme Court of Canada's recent decision in Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canada (AG) can be seen as a book end to its two judgments last year on Charter remedies, R. v. Conway and Vancouver (City) v. Ward.

On September 21, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Canada (AG) v Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, a case dealing with the law of public interest standing in constitutional cases.

The Union of British Columbia Municipalities held their annual convention between September 25 and September 28, 2017, discussing several policies and reforms, including election and lobbying reform...

In a unanimous decision issued November 8, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada granted the appeal of the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Canada v Callidus Capital Corp, 2017 FCA 162.

The world of intellectual property (IP) underwent some significant transformations this summer, with recent changes from the U.S. Federal Circuit and the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) reshaping the landscape of design patent law.

On May 24, 2024, after nearly 25 years of negotiations, the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) announced that member states, including Canada, had agreed to a new Treaty on Intellectual Property...

Mark Biernacki and Urszula Wojtyra for the Plaintiffs, Astrazeneca Canada and Aktiebolaget Hässle Andrew Brodkin and Daniel Cappe for the Defendant, Apotex.

A recent decision involving an AT&T trademark demonstrates how the global reach of technology businesses can sometimes result in a blurring of markets...

U.S. Supreme Court in Bilski In Bilski v. Kappos, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the patentability of the Bilski patent application in issue, as well as addressed broader questions of whether business methods can be categorically excluded from patentability and how to determine the patentability of a "process" under 35 U.S.C. §101 of the United States Patent Act.

The case Medos Services Corporation v. Ridout and Maybee LLP 2013 FC 1006 is an example of what happens when the owner of a registered trademark ignores a Section 45 notice.

Intellectual property litigation is an increasingly international business.

In Bauer Hockey Corp. v. Easton Sports Canada Inc. 2011 FCA 83 (hereinafter Bauer v. Easton), the Canadian Federal Court of Appeals considered an appeal from Easton that it had infringed Bauer’s patent pertaining to a skate boot and induced a third-party manufacturer to do the same.

Many of you have read about the dispute over copyright ownership of the monkey-selfie, where a primate took a digital photo that went viral.

With the beginning of the Supreme Court of Canada's Winter Session on January 8, the Supreme Court of Canada entered a new era following the retirement of former Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin ...

In Perez-Nana v Cargill Limited, 2022 ABQB 283, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench considered a sequencing application. Guided by efficiency and fairness, ...

The Alberta Court of Appeal in Arsopi v ARVOS GmbH provided welcome relief from the consternation caused by Orica Canada Inc v ARVOS GmbH [Orica], a 2024 Alberta Court of King's Bench...

Miss Manners may just be worth listening to for those involved in wills and estate litigation. In fact, not doing so may be to your detriment given that poor conduct can cost you with the courts.

Last month, Justice Belobaba released five costs decisions with a strong message for the class action bar: access to justice is becoming too expensive and the excesses of counsel are at least partly to blame (Rosen v BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc., 2013 ONSC 6356; Crisante v DePuy Orthopaedics, 2013 ONSC 6351; Dugal v Manulife Financial, 2013 ONSC 6354; Brown v Canada (Attorney General), 2013 ONSC 6887; and Sankar v Bell Mobility Inc., 2013 ONSC 6886).