Include a similar case in Canada to support your argument.

Case 1

Doug and Bill Tremblett were brothers and, at least in the early stages, owned a fishing boat together. The brothers worked together in the fishing operation from 1989 to 2004 using a crab license that Bill had acquired through a swap and that was held in his own name. The crab fishing license was the primary asset of the business and the main subject matter of the dispute. After the brothers stopped working together Bill continued on with the fishing enterprise, relying on the crab license he had obtained.

Explain any claim Doug might have against Bill in this situation. Would it affect your answer if Bill did more than Doug? If the value of the license was over $800,000 at the time they stopped fishing together, what would Doug be entitled to if successful given the trial took place in 2012?

Case 2

Adams was involved in a direct mailing scheme centered in Ontario and aimed at subjects in the United States. These direct mailings contained false and misleading representations contrary to section 52(1) of the Competition Act. He was charged under that section in the action.

Explain any arguments that he might be able to raise in his defense. Does it make any difference where his potential victims reside? If this prosecution were unsuccessful under the Competition Act, is there any other legislation that can be used against him?

Case 3

The City of Kitchener passed a new statute in its Property Standards By-Law prohibiting the distribution of light that disturbed adjacent inhabitants or trespassed on their property. An order to desist such light distribution was issued to 48965 Ontario Ltd. They disputed the order, claiming that the bylaw was too vague and retrospective.

What do you think? Was it being applied retrospectively? Can such a by-law regulating the distribution of light be clear, or is it necessarily vague?

Case 4

The corporation defendant consented to a judgement against it. The issue was whether its owner/director, Smith, was personally liable. The defendant corporation provided cabinets for Smith's personal residence. The transaction was with the defendant corporation. The house went into foreclosure but the corporation was owed $250,000. Smith did not give any personal guarantee; he owed $250,000 to the defendant corporation for the cabinets.

Is this a case in which the Courts would "lift the corporate veil"? Why or why not?

Case 5

Smith was an inventor who had patented and produced a tool containing bearings that could better handle the download in well-drilling operation. A corporation manufactured an identical product and Smith sued the corporation for patent infringement.

Explain the appropriate remedies available to Smith. How would if affect your answer to know that Smith manufactured a tool sold to the industry that contained the bearing at the time the patent was applied for? Note as well that the corporation also claimed that the development of the bearings was an obvious development to anyone in the industry.