Canada Case Law

Henriques v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Appeal Division's dismissal of the applicant's appeal was reasonable because the General Division properly found misconduct under s.30 of the Employment Insurance Act: the applicant knew or ought to have known IKEA's customer conduct expectations, had been warned, and willfully contravened the policy by directing a customer to 'shut up'; the factual findings were not perverse or capricious and the applicant's health and harassment claims did not render the decision unreasonable.

Source excerpt

• Misconduct
• Standard of review
• Evidence and findings of fact
• Notice and warnings
• Workplace harassment and health issues

Read case analysis

Green Rise Foods Inc. v. N.V. Hagelunie

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Ontario Court of Appeal set aside summary judgment in a greenhouse insurance dispute, holding the motion judge misapplied causation analysis and failed to resolve key factual issues.

• Coverage
• Causation
• Policy interpretation
• Exclusions
• Summary judgment
• Onus of proof

Read case analysis

Cressey Construction Corporation v. Parolin

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The appellant's unilateral revocation of an established express oral term permitting the respondent to work from home, without reasonable notice, was a breach of contract that constituted constructive dismissal; the trial judge did not err in finding the respondent's decision to pursue business ventures was a reasonable form of mitigation and in awarding 19 months' pay in lieu of notice, and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Constructive dismissal
• Mitigation of damages
• Notice period
• Oral terms of employment
• Work-from-home arrangements
• Punitive damages

Read case analysis

Canada (Attorney General) v. Zoladkowski

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Appeal Division reasonably concluded the General Division erred: incarceration or house arrest alone does not establish misconduct for EI purposes absent evidence that the claimant's underlying conduct was wilful, deliberate or so reckless as to approach wilfulness; the Commission failed to meet its burden to prove such conduct, therefore the Attorney General's application for judicial review is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Misconduct disentitling to ei benefits
• Standard of review (reasonableness)
• Appeal division intervention grounds
• Burden of proof on commission

Read case analysis

Siam v. Canada

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Tax Court did not err: appellant failed to prove the 2018 notice of assessment was not mailed, the normal assessment period therefore ended by April 19, 2021, the 2023 reassessment fell within s.152(4.2) and was not subject to objection under s.165(1.2), and any CRA misstatements could not create a substantive right to object; appeal dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Reassessment
• Notice of assessment
• Limitation period
• Legitimate expectations
• Credibility and standard of review

Read case analysis

R. v. I.A.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a murder and attempted murder conviction, finding the circumstantial evidence supported aiding and abetting and the wilful blindness instruction was proper.

• First degree murder
• Attempted murder
• Aiding and abetting
• Wilful blindness
• Circumstantial evidence
• Jury instructions

Read case analysis

Chanderpaul v. Caesars Convention Centre Ltd.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Court of Appeal upholds dismissal of claims against the Kauras and R.K.S., leaves the overservice claim against Caesars to proceed, and dismisses both appeal and cross-appeal.

• Overservice/liquor liability
• Piercing the corporate veil
• Summary judgment
• Rule 21 striking pleadings
• Statute of limitations
• Duty to insure

Read case analysis

Anzola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The ID is entitled, when applying paragraph 36(1)(b) IRPA, to consider extraneous circumstances that made the legal defence of duress not practically available in the foreign jurisdiction because duress goes to the voluntariness fundamental to criminal liability; the ID unreasonably failed to consider credible evidence that duress prevented the appellant from raising the defence and therefore the ID decision is set aside and the matter must be remitted for reconsideration.

Source excerpt

• Inadmissibility under paragraph 36(1)(b) irpa
• Serious criminality
• Defence of duress
• Equivalency test
• Procedural fairness
• Judicial review

Read case analysis

Rogers Communications Canada Inc. v. Timeless Inc.

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Commission's remedy ordering staff‑assisted mediation and, if unsuccessful, final offer arbitration was a reasonable, discretionary response to an undue preference finding; its reasons were adequate when read in context, Rogers waived its complaint about new evidence, and claims that the Commission lacked power or was functus officio were either not raised below or unpersuasive; appeal and judicial review are dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Undue preference
• Remedies
• Alternative dispute resolution
• Judicial review
• Reasons for decision
• Functus officio

Read case analysis

Singh (Re)

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for a new Ontario Review Board hearing on whether a conditional discharge with a Young clause was viable.

• Not criminally responsible (ncr)
• Conditional discharge
• Detention order
• Young clause
• Enforcement of conditions
• Section 672.93 criminal code

Read case analysis