Focus On
NEW In-House Counsel | Insurance | Intellectual Property | Immigration | Natural Resources | Real Estate | Tax

In-House Counsel

Latest

Thursday, September 22, 2016 @ 08:00 PM

Health Law - Public health - Food and drug safety - Practice and procedure - General principles - Legislation - Interpretation - Statutes

Appeal by defendant from convictions for numerous offences under the Food and Drugs Act (FDA). Between 2008 and 2010, the appellant marketed and sold a variety of products containing 1-Benzyl-Piperazine (BZP), a substance similar to an amphetamine. During that time, BZP was not listed under any schedule in the FDA or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Health Canada repeatedly warned the appellant that it considered BZP to be a drug and requested that he apply for the necessary licenses and approvals. Eventually, the appellant and his two companies were charged with various regulatory offences under the FDA and associated regulations. The appellant and one of his companies were convicted of six counts of selling a drug in dosage form for which no drug identification number was assigned, six counts of selling and advertising a new drug without the manufacturer filing a new drug submission and without the Minister issuing a notice of compliance, one count of importing for sale drugs that violated the FDA and regulations and one count of advertising drugs to the public as a treatment or cure for addiction. The trial judge found that BZP modified organic functions in human beings and therefore fell under the definition of “drug” in the FDA. The appellant challenged his convictions on the grounds that the verdicts were unreasonable. He argued that BZP was not a drug under the general definition of the term in the FDA because the term did not apply to recreational substances. He further argued that if BZP was a drug, the verdict that it was sold as a preventative for addiction was unreasonable as it was unsupported by the evidence. ... [read more]

Thursday, September 15, 2016 @ 08:00 PM

Contracts - Formation - Oral contracts

Appeal by the defendant, Pioneer Balloon, from a judgment in favour of the plaintiff, Zenex Enterprises. The plaintiff wholesaled and distributed consumer goods to, among others, the retail chain Dollarama. The defendant manufactured balloons that the plaintiff purchased and sold to Dollarama. In 2005, the defendant entered into an agreement to sell balloons directly to Dollarama. Several million dollars of balloons were sold over the next five years. The plaintiff sued, claiming it was entitled to a commission on the defendant’s sales pursuant to an oral agreement it made to introduce the defendant to Dollarama and to assist in obtaining Dollarama’s business. The defendant contended that it secured Dollarama’s business on its own, and that the plaintiff was limited to a $5,000 fee. The trial judge found that the defendant breached an oral agreement with the plaintiff and awarded damages of $266,725. The defendant appealed. The plaintiff cross-appealed a $5,000 costs award in favour of the defendant in respect of an interlocutory motion. ... [read more]

Thursday, September 01, 2016 @ 08:00 PM

Ruling said to mean state can ‘attack anyone’

A recent Ontario Court of Appeal ruling reinforces the federal Food and Drugs Act’s overly broad definition of a drug and will only create confusion and stifle innovation, says a British Columbia lawyer who frequently works with the natural health products industry. ... [read more]

Thursday, May 26, 2016 @ 08:00 PM

Privacy watchdog wants to see new office enforcement muscle

Canada’s privacy watchdog says “the time has come” to change his role under the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) from that of an ombudsman, who can only make non-binding recommendations, to a regulator with authority to make binding orders, and even impose fines on recalcitrant organizations. ... [read more]

Thursday, April 14, 2016 @ 08:00 PM

Banking on blood

The recent announcement that a private plasma donation clinic had opened in Saskatoon has reignited the controversy surrounding paid donation of blood products, with opponents invoking memories of the tainted blood scandal to argue against the practice.  ... [read more]

Thursday, July 16, 2015 @ 08:00 PM

Transparency guidelines don’t go far enough, say critics

The federal government’s new transparency reporting guidelines are being criticized for being too limited in their scope, too exclusive in their design and too weak to be effective. ... [read more]

Thursday, July 09, 2015 @ 08:00 PM

Google case could end up at top court

In a case that could go to the Supreme Court of Canada, the British Columbia Court of Appeal recently upheld an order that Google remove from its search results the websites of a company being sued for trademark infringement and unlawful appropriation of trade secrets. ... [read more]

Thursday, July 09, 2015 @ 08:00 PM

Crisis plan could have minimized Dalhousie fallout

A crisis response protocol could have minimized fallout for Dalhousie University over last December’s Facebook scandal involving misogynistic and sexually violent comments posted by 13 fourth-year male dentistry students, according to Ottawa corporate litigator Todd Burke. ... [read more]

Thursday, July 09, 2015 @ 08:00 PM

Feds soften Integrity Framework, but some criticisms remain

The federal government has softened, but not eliminated, some of the perceived rough edges around its controversial Integrity Framework for procurement, though some observers feel the changes still don’t go far enough and at least one alteration has raised alarm bells. ... [read more]