Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court dismissed a judicial review of BCFIRB’s approval of MPL as a designated agency, finding the decision within its supervisory powers and not patently unreasonable.
The Ministerial Order was reasonable because the CFIA record contained objectively discernible facts and a rational chain of analysis that supported a reasonable suspicion that PEI (including unregulated fields) was exposed to potato wart, and once the statutory threshold was met the Minister permissibly considered trade consequences in exercising her discretionary authority under s.15(3).
Source excerpt
The court dismissed Prokam Enterprises Ltd.’s judicial review of a Farm Industry Review Board supervisory review, and found its stay request moot.
The Federal Court dismissed a judicial review of CFIA’s national potato wart survey, holding the inspection powers were reasonably exercised and did not breach section 8 of the Charter.
The Court of Appeal held the inspector’s interpretation of the ALR cannabis regulation was unreasonable, but the permit issue had to be remitted for a soil-base determination.
La Cour d’appel de la Colombie-Britannique a accueilli l’appel, annulé l’ordonnance de révision judiciaire et rétabli la décision du FIRB rejetant l’appel de Patton.
The court upheld the Board’s farm-classification decision, finding its interpretation of s. 8(9) of the Regulation reasonable and rejecting reliance on Kelt.
The Tribunal erred in law by applying the defence of automatism without the required assertion of involuntariness and without confirming psychiatric expert evidence as mandated by R. v. Stone; the available medical records were inadequate to support automatism and the record compelled only one conclusion — the Minister's decision confirming the Notice of Violation must be reinstated.
Source excerpt
Section 9 of the CLPA bars the appellant's claim because compensation had been paid from public funds in respect of the same event (the anaplasmosis outbreak on the farm), and s.9, as interpreted in Sarvanis and applied in Langille and Begg, precludes additional claims based on the same factual basis even if framed as different heads of loss.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal's conclusions were supported by the evidence on the record and there was no reviewable error; the Court must not conduct a de novo trial or substitute its own factual findings, therefore the judicial review application is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
