BARE BONES BRIEFS | SCC: Can courts cancel child support arrears retroactively? | FCA upholds “unprecedented” site block order | SCC grants leave from $644 million patent infringement award| OCA rules on limitation in unidentified motorist cases | Can’t miss: law firm webinars & bulletins

Women with pencil on shoulder putting check marks on clipboard list

By Julius Melnitzer | June 1, 2021

CAN JUDGES CANCEL CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS RETROACTIVELY?

On Friday, June 4, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) will determine whether courts can retroactively cancel child support arrears. The judgment in Colluci v. Colluci will consider whether doing so provides an incentive for payors to be delinquent.

Related Article: Amicus curiae in private family law cases

SCC GRANTS LEAVE FROM LARGEST PATENT INFRINGMENT AWARD EVER IN CANADA

How should courts calculate a disgorgement of profits in the patent context? That’s the question the SCC has agreed to decide by granting leave in Nova Chemicals Corporation v. Dow Chemical Company. After the Federal Court ruled that Nova had infringed certain Dow patents, Dow elected to seek damages by way of an accounting of Nova’s profits. The Federal Court judge who heard the damages reference awarded Dow $644 million. The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the award. This will be the first time the SCC has weighed in on this issue, including whether “springboard profits” on products sold after patent expiry are available at law.

Related Article: In Uber era, valuing of intangible assets urgently needs consistent standards

FCA UPHOLDS “UNPRECEDENTED” SITE BLOCK ORDER AGAINST INNOCENT ISPS

The Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) has upheld an “unprecedented” site block order against internet service providers (ISPs) who were not defendants in an underlying copyright infringement action and were not accused of any wrongdoing.

The order came at the behest of Bell Media Inc., Groupe TVA Inc. and Rogers Media Inc. They alleged that the anonymous operators of GoldTV Services provided unauthorized access to the plaintiffs’ copyrighted content over the Internet. The order’s purpose was to impede customers of various ISPs, including TekSavvy Solutions Inc., from accessing GoldTV. Despite the fact that none of the ISPs was a defendant in the action against GoldTV and that the plaintiffs had not alleged wrongdoing on the ISPs’ part, the Federal Court granted the order, which the FCA affirmed. As the unanimous appeal panel saw it, nothing in the Copyright Act “suggests an intention to deny copyright owners the benefit of a site blocking order”. And in this case, the order was “just and equitable”:

Where, in an action against an anonymous defendant, a court can be convinced that said defendant has and will maintain its anonymity and ignore an injunction against it, it would seem pointless and unfair to require that the plaintiff jump through certain hoops and wait a certain time to confirm what it already knows, and the court already accepts, before seeking an injunction against a third party.

Related Story: Protecting brands in North America

OCA: WHEN DOES LIMITATION PERIOD AGAINST UNIDENTIFIED MOTORIST INSURER START TO RUN?

Related Story: Top 10 business decisions of 2018

CAN’T MISS: LAW FIRM WEBINARS

Bennett Jones: Spring 2021 Economic Outlook: Beyond COVID

Blaney McMurtry: Your Client is being Audited – Audit 2.0

CAN’T MISS: LAW FIRM BULLETINS

McMillan: BILL 96 – Top 10 Impacts of the Revised Charter of the French Language on your Business and When to Expect Implementation of Such Revisions

Torys: The future of AI regulation in Canada: what we can learn from the E.U.’s proposed AI framework

Torys: Proof of vaccination: privacy considerations for businesses

Julius Melnitzer is a Toronto-based legal affairs writer, ghostwriter, writing coach and media trainer. Readers can reach him at [email protected] or https://legalwriter.net/contact.

Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com