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