Business Law Case Analysis: R. v. Bata, Higginson, Harvard

This document presents a comprehensive analysis of three significant Canadian Business Law cases: R. v. Bata Industries Ltd., Higginson v. Babine Forest Products Ltd., and Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents). The analysis of R. v. Bata Industries focuses on environmental law violations, outlining the company's failure to maintain its waste storage facility, leading to charges under the Environmental Protection Act and Ontario Water Resources Act. Higginson v. Babine Forest Products explores employment law, detailing a wrongful dismissal case where an electrician was unfairly terminated to avoid severance, resulting in substantial damages for the plaintiff. Finally, Harvard College v. Canada examines patent law, specifically the patentability of transgenic animals, and the Supreme Court's decision to reject the patent claim, emphasizing the limitations of the Patent Act in addressing higher life forms. The document provides detailed summaries of each case, legal principles, and court decisions, addressing the assignment brief's requirements.

Running Head: CANADIAN BUSINESS LAW
CANADIAN BUSINESS LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CANADIAN BUSINESS LAW
Q1: R. v. Bata Industries Ltd.
In August 1989, the Ontario Ministry of Environment inspected the Bata Industries and
found out that the waste storage facility of the industry is not well-maintained. They found
out that many barrels comprises of chemical products were not secured, or open to the air, or
spilling over outside. The department charged Bata industries under several provisions such
as for violating Section of the Environmental Protection Act and Ontario Water Resource
Act. The court held the company liable under section 141 of the Environmental Protection
Act, R.S.O. 1980 (Environmental Protection Act), Section 30(1) and Section 116(1) of
Ontario Water Resource Act, Section 130(2) and Section 136 of Business Corporations Act,
R.S.O. 1990, and Section 72 of Provincial Offences Act, 1990 (R. v. Bata Industries Ltd.)
The court held that the company has been found guilty follow allowing chemical hazards
to discharge and mix with the groundwater violating provision of then section 16(1) but now
section 30(1) of the Ontario Water Resources Act (Horbulyk). Further, the court opined the
view that the management of the company has failed to take reasonable care to avert such
unlawful discharge in violation of section 75(1) of OWRA instead of knowing the fact that
such discharge may result in contaminant the water quality. Therefore, the methods that have
been employed are said to be vague and unsatisfactory. The court further held that such
violation resulted in the breach of rights such as the right to life, right to liberty and security
of the person as protected under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom
(Clarke, Findlay, and King).

2CANADIAN BUSINESS LAW
Q2: Higginson v. Babine Forest Products Ltd.
In this case, the plaintiff Larry Higginson was an electrician of a sawmill, in the B.C. mill
town of Burns Lake for 34 years. In the later years, the plaintiff was promoted as a manager
in the electrical department. In 2006, the sawmill was sold to Hampton Lumber Mills and 3
years after that is in 2009, Mr. Higginson was dismissed for cause. The plaintiff contended
that he was unfairly dismissed with the inducement of the new owner that is Hampton and his
termination was to avoid the severance way which he is liable to get as a long term employee
of the company. The jury opined the view that such dismissal was unlawful and awarded the
plaintiff with a compensatory damages amount to $236,000 for the wrongful dismissal by the
company. Along with this, the jury awarded the plaintiff with punitive damages of $573,000
for the company’s unfair conduct by terminating his employment (Higginson v. Babine
Forest Products Ltd.).
The jury delivered the judgment after being satisfied with the fact that the plaintiff
Larry Higginson successfully established the fact of Hampton’s involvement in his dismissal
with requisite fact. Furthermore, Mr. Dave Gracia, who was the supervisor of the plaintiff for
the last 3 years of his employment with the company was also said to be employed by
Hampton and has reasonable involvement in the termination process. Therefore, the jury
further held that misconduct on the part of the employer is intolerable and hence such
dismissal of the plaintiff is held to be unfair and illegal. Therefore, from the fact of the case,
it can be said that further documentation while merging or acquiring a company is necessary
to understand the hierarchy in the newly formed company.

3CANADIAN BUSINESS LAW
Q3: Harvard College v. Canada, (Commissioner of Patents)
The plaintiff (respondent) filed a patent under for over a method by which the plaintiff
can create transgenic animals, whose genomes are said to be altered by injecting oncogene,
which is a cancer-promoting gene into the eggs of a fertilized mouse near to the one0cell
stage. Therefore, the eggs were intended to be entrenched to a female host mouse and let her
allow to term. Once the progeny of such host mouse are delivered, they are intended to be
tested to find out the existence of oncogene. The mice in whose body there will be the
presence of Oncogene, they are to be mated with normal mice. The intention for such a
method is to produce mice that are going to help in carcinogenic studies and the patent was
claimed over the process as well as the product of the process. The patent examiner rejected
the product claim but allowed the process claim. The trial court upheld the decision of the
Patent Examiner. Though the Federal court of Appeal criticized the decision of the Patent
examiner by stating that once an invention complete with the requisite of the Patent Act, the
examiner has no right to deny the same under section 40 of the same Act (Cummings).
However, the Supreme Court rejected the patent claim of the respondent and held that
oncomouse and life forms do not fall within the purview of the patent Act (Harvard College
v. Canada, Commissioner of Patents).
The Supreme Court while determining the questionability of the patent was a dilemma
with the existence of the fact that whether " in the Patent Act, is enough wide-ranging based
on the words manufacture" or "composition of matter," to determine the patent question
regarding higher life forms. But the Court held that the provision of the Patent Act failed to
answer this sort of patent question and referrer the same decision for Parliamentary
discretion.

4CANADIAN BUSINESS LAW
Reference:
Act, Environmental Protection. "c 141 Environmental Protection Act." (1980).
Cummings, Katharine H. "Just Out of Reach: Congress, Courts, and Industry Struggle to
Define the Scope of US Patent Law Overseas." Berkeley Tech. LJ 33 (2018): 861.
Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents), 2002 SCC 76
Higginson v. Babine Forest Products Ltd., 2010 BCSC 614
Horbulyk, Ted. "Water policy in Canada." Water Policy and Governance in Canada.
Springer, Cham, 2017. 29-43.
R. v. Bata Industries Ltd., [1992] O.J. No. 236, C.C.C. (3d) 394 p