BROADCASTS.com

b'

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:

Budway, a Vancouver marijuana store, has been using a logo similar to the Subway sandwich logo. Budway also had a mascot in the form of a submarine sandwich filled with cannabis leaves, with bloodshot, half-open eyes.\\xa0

Subway sued Budway, alleging various breaches of the Trademarks Act.\\xa0

One of the issues in the case was whether what Budway was doing amounted to \\u201cpassing off\\u201d This can occur if consumers could be misled into believing that something is being manufactured, sold, or performed by a different company.\\xa0

Last year, Toys \\u201cR\\u201d US sued another Vancouver marijuana store called Herbs \\u201cR\\u201d US. In that case, while Toys \\u201cR\\u201d US was successful in proving that their goodwill was being depreciated by Herbs \\u201cR\\u201d US, they failed to prove that Herbs \\u201cR\\u201d US was engaged in passing off because even a casual consumer would not think the same company that sold toys was also selling marijuana.\\xa0

Subway was successful in their passing off claim because the Subway trademark was related to the sale of things including cookies, muffins, and pastries.

Budway was selling marijuana edibles, including cookies and brownies, and has posted an online video promoting Munchie Monday with 10% off all edibles.\\xa0

Subway was awarded $15,000 in damages plus $25,000 in legal costs.\\xa0

Also on the show, the Highlands District Community Association was unsuccessful in the BC Court of Appeal challenging the decision of the Mines Inspector to approve a mine in the District of Highlands.\\xa0

Unlike other kinds of development, municipalities don\\u2019t decide if a mine can be built. That decision is made by the Mines Inspector: a provincial government official.\\xa0

The community association argued that the Mines Inspector was obliged to consider the climate change implications of permitting the mine.\\xa0

On a judicial review of an administrative decision, judges are not permitted to just make whatever decision they think would be best. Judges can only overturn an administrative decision, such as the one to permit the mine, if they conclude the decision was unreasonable, or if there was no authority to make the decision.\\xa0

In this case, the Court of Appeal agreed that climate change was important and found that the Mines Inspector would be permitted to consider it, however, all three judges agreed that the Mines Inspector\\u2019s decision was not made unreasonable by his decision not to seek out evidence about how the proposed mine would impact climate change.\\xa0

Finally, on the show, a Supreme Court of Canada case involving how privacy interest should be weighed against the principle that courts are to be open and transparent.\\xa0

The case involved an application by the estate of a wealthy Toronto couple, who was murdered in 2017, to keep the estate file private.\\xa0

The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the file should not be sealed because ensuring court decisions were open to the public was important and an essential feature of a democracy. It\\u2019s important that the public be able to know what\\u2019s happening when courts make decisions.\\xa0

The Supreme Court of Canada did find that, in limited circumstances, court proceedings could be sealed when allowing access would undermine the dignity of individuals involved by permitting access to private information that was so sensitive that it could be said to strike at the biographical core of the individual.

Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.\\xa0