Case Study Analysis: Environmental, Employment, and Patent Law Cases

This document presents a comprehensive analysis of three distinct case studies. The first case examines the Bata Shoe Company, focusing on environmental law violations related to effluent treatment. The analysis covers the legal proceedings, the application of the Environmental Protection Act, and the court's ruling. The second case study delves into an employment law dispute involving wrongful dismissal, exploring issues of witness examination, adherence to employment regulations, and the importance of proper documentation. Finally, the third case study scrutinizes the patentability of genetically transformed organisms, specifically Harvard College's transgenic mouse, and the legal battle surrounding patent rights. The analysis highlights the court's interpretation of patent acts and the debate over the inclusion of living organisms in patent law, including relevant citations.

Surname1
Name
Course
Tutor
Date
Solution
The case studies have been evaluated in the order that they appear in the assignment guidance
folio.
Case one
On the 1st day of the 8th month in the year 1989 two environmental officers attached to
Ministry of Environment of Ontario, charged top managers of the Bata Shoe Company with
pollution. The law officials accused the company administrators of running effluent treatment
plant in violation to the guidelines of section 27(a) of the Environmental Protection Act (E.P.A).
They outlined a total of six offences on the charge sheet which was presented to the Provincial
Division of Ontario Court for determination of the case. The Defendants banked on the relief of
due diligence to save them. That the court could establish that they actually they conducted their
activities with equitable caution. A former Employ of Bata, Mr.Riden, is examined to help the
court establish the environmental practices in the industry.
On day seven in the second month of the year 1992. The judge ruled against Bata
Company. He found them guilty to have triggered or permitted the emission of toxic and
untreated flow into Lake Ottawa. Section 16(1) and or with 16(2) of Ottawa Water Resource Act

Surname2
pronounce the defendants liable. Evidence presented in the court established that their
organization was responsible for the pollution without an iota of doubt. The judge used section
75(1) of the OWRA together with sub-section 147a of the Environmental Protection Act in
combination with the insight of industrial ethics practice as painted by Mr. Riven. The law was
clear in identifying the owner of an Effluent Treatment Plant and the emission site.
Case two
Former employee (plaintiff) and an organization (Accused) are caught in a court battle.
They explore and utilized various provisions anchored in the different chapters and sections of
the employment laws in the jurisdiction of the British Columbia’s supreme Law. Preliminary
stage of the case is marked with disparity of consent on who should be examined by the court as
a witness. Several applications are submitted before the court by both parties to determine who
should be the legitimate parties to the case, between Hampton, Robert Evans and the Glen. The
court is has the power to alternate witnesses (Master S. Scarth). The complainant seeks to be
compensated for wrongful dismissal. The jurisdiction of the court under the ruling law is put to
test in this case.
Laying off and termination of contracts of employees should follow the strict guidelines
enshrined the labor laws. Both the employee and the employer can only happen under limited
scenarios like death, permanent health condition, misconduct by the employee and mutual
agreements. When dismissing an employee based on their act then it should be according to the
Employment Act (MCCrudden). Babine should have adhered to the rule to avoid unnecessary
litigations. There is dire need for organizations to maintain good relationship with their

Surname3
employees to encourage growth and conducive environment for introducing changes without
much opposition. Part of the reason for the dismissal of the plaintiff is because he opposed a
policy that was being introduced. Likewise it is important to record details of each employee and
the position they hold within the organization. Hampton could have easily proved his case had
they organization practiced proper documentation.
Case three
Harvard College created genetically transformed mouse and now they wanted to patent
their idea with the commissioner of patent in Canada. In their submission they defined their
discovery as transgenic animals. They induced cancer growth in mouse to create species for
studies and research on cancer, namely carcinogenic studies. They were to secure the process and
the product of their work (CanLII). Only the process was patented while the product was
dismissed. This led to a heated court battle between Harvard College and Canada (Commissioner
of Patents). The main issues in this case is how to define those subjects that are patentable.
The Supreme Court held a dissenting decision. The ruling was based on the interpretation
of the Patent Acts as was formulated by the parliament. Whether parliament intended to include
living organism to be eligible for patenting. It was argued that not every form of creation
perceives the nature of patentability. And other forms of the law like the famous Plant Breeders’
Rights Acts were formulated to encourage scientist to develop creative and resourceful methods
in the subject of biotechnology. The court recognized that is only parliament that had the legal
supremacy to restore patent rights to an invention of high life form. This case addressed majorly
addressed the issue of patentability.

Surname4
Citations
CanLII. "Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser." SCR 902 21 5 2004: 2-737. document.
Master S. Scarth. "Higginson v. Babine Forest Products Ltd.,." 2010 BCSC 614 25 March 2010:
25-210. document.
MCCrudden, C. "Two views of subordination: the personal scope of employment discrimination
law in Jivraj v Hashwani." Industrial Law Journal 62.1 (2019): 30-55. document.
Stranz, Nancy J. ""Case Comment: R. v. Bata Industries Ltd." Alberta Law Review 4 2 1993:
729-729. document.