Canada Case Law

British Columbia Athletic Commissioner v. Simon Fraser University

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The appeal is allowed because the Athletic Commissioner Act and its regulations do not, expressly or by implication, create a private law duty of care to individual athletes, and SFU's amended third party notice fails to plead the material facts necessary to establish proximity (the key basis for a novel duty). Bare allegations that the regulator knew or ought to have known of contraventions are insufficient; therefore the third party notice is plain and obvious to fail and must be struck (without prejudice to SFU applying to refile if material facts are available).

Source excerpt

• Duty of care
• Proximity
• Negligence
• Strike pleadings
• Regulator liability
• Athletic regulation

Read case analysis

Crazy Greek Chick Foods Limited v. Chakroborty

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed because the chambers judge did not misapply the Miracle Feeds test, reasonably accepted the respondent's affidavit as disclosing a defence worthy of investigation given the oral contract and disputed facts, and there was no reasonable apprehension of bias; no palpable and overriding error warranted appellate intervention.

Source excerpt

• Setting aside default judgment
• Meritorious defence
• Procedural fairness
• Reasonable apprehension of bias
• Extension of time
• Miracle feeds test

Read case analysis

Brar v. Kaler

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal denied because the proposed appeal lacked sufficient significance to practice and to the action, did not meet the merits threshold given the discretionary nature of the chambers decision and record evidence of potential prejudice, and although oral submissions were limited there was no manifest unfairness or actual prejudice warranting appellate intervention; therefore it is not in the interests of justice to grant leave.

Source excerpt

• Divorce pending resolution of corollary relief
• Severance of issues
• Procedural fairness (audi alteram partem)
• Standard of review for discretionary decisions
• Prejudice from loss of spousal status
• Costs

Read case analysis

R. v. Earle

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

The application for production of the Complainant's therapy records and educational project is denied because the Accused failed to establish likely relevance under s.278.3: the therapy notes were handwritten summaries and non‑verbatim, the content relevant to credibility and change in perception is already contained in the Complainant's police statement available to Defence, and the asserted links were speculative and unsupported; consequently there was no need to address necessity under s.278.5.

Source excerpt

• Section 278 record production
• Likely relevance
• Necessity in the interests of justice (s.278.5)
• Publication ban (s.486.4)
• Therapeutic records
• Prior inconsistent statements

Read case analysis

R. v. Crawford

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was denied because, although questions of law were raised, they lack importance beyond this case and lack a reasonable prospect of success: the Bylaw regulates non-incidental commercial vehicle parking rather than the conduct of farm businesses and therefore does not fall within ss.481(2) or 552 LGA requiring ministerial approval, and it is not inconsistent with the ALCA in a way that would alter the appellants' convictions.

Source excerpt

• Ultra vires
• Bylaw validity
• Paramountcy
• Ministerial approval
• Leave to appeal test
• Ejusdem generis

Read case analysis

Gupta v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed Mohit Gupta’s Rule 397 motion for reconsideration, holding the request improperly sought to reargue a prior judicial review decision.

• Motion for reconsideration
• Rule 397
• Procedural fairness
• Finality of judgments
• Vavilov standard
• Motion-for-reconsideration

Read case analysis

Mîra v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court allowed judicial review, finding the RAD’s refusal of new evidence and its exclusion analysis unreasonable, and remitted the appeal for redetermination.

• Article 1f(b) exclusion
• Admission of new evidence under s.110(4) irpa
• Judicial review - reasonableness standard
• Assessment of issuing foreign authority
• Forward‑looking risk / person in need of protection
• Article-1f-b-exclusion

Read case analysis

Pal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of an RPD decision finding a refugee claim manifestly unfounded, holding the credibility-based decision was reasonable.

• Manifestly unfounded
• Credibility findings
• Standard of review (reasonableness)
• Internal flight alternative
• Caste discrimination
• Documentary evidence fraud

Read case analysis

Nalyanya v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division decision, finding the adverse credibility findings, use of corroboration, and procedural fairness analysis reasonable.

• Credibility assessment
• Sogiesc guidelines
• Corroborative evidence
• Standard of review (reasonableness)
• Language barriers
• Admissibility of new evidence

Read case analysis

Vasquez Restrepo c. Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration)

Court

Federal Court

La Cour fédérale rejette le contrôle judiciaire d’une décision de la SPR, jugeant raisonnable la conclusion qu’une PRI viable existait à Barranquilla.

• Internal flight alternative
• Credibility
• Standard of review
• Burden of proof
• Viability of proposed refuge
• Internal-flight-alternative

Read case analysis