Canada Case Law

The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 3495 v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 3495 (Residential Section)

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The applications for leave to appeal were dismissed: the directions to adjourn did not determine procedural or substantive rights and were therefore largely non‑appealable; even if appealable, leave would be refused because the chambers judge acted within his broad discretion, the applicant's grounds lacked merit and were frivolous (including unsupported bias claims), an appeal would unduly delay the underlying petition, and this Court lacked jurisdiction to decide an application that was not substantively determined by the court below.

Source excerpt

• Adjournment
• Leave to appeal
• Mootness
• Reasonable apprehension of bias
• Case management
• Stay pending appeal

Read case analysis

R. v. K.H.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal for Ontario denied bail pending appeal in a child sexual interference case, finding the proposed appeal grounds weak and the public interest against release strong.

• Bail pending appeal
• Section 11(b) delay
• Jury instructions
• Inconsistent verdicts
• Public confidence in administration of justice
• Enforceability vs reviewability

Read case analysis

E.L.R. v. D.M.S.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed D.M.S.’s motion to extend time to perfect his appeal, citing unexplained delay, repeated non-compliance, prejudice, and no merit.

• Extension of time to appeal
• Striking of pleadings
• Disclosure obligations
• Costs orders
• Best interests of the child
• Non‑compliance with court orders

Read case analysis

Este v. Taherkhani

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed an application for review and granted an application to quash the appeal, holding the disqualification ruling was not presently appealable.

• Appealability of interlocutory orders
• Application to quash
• Judicial bias/disqualification
• Court of appeal rules r.60(4)
• Court of appeal act s.13(1) and s.29(1)
• Appellate-jurisdiction

Read case analysis

Castilloux v. Mitchell

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal upheld the refusal to wind up Mitchell Press and rejected fresh evidence, finding the chambers judge applied the correct s. 324 BCA framework.

• Just and equitable winding up
• Section 324 bca
• Business judgment rule
• Fresh evidence on appeal
• Partnership analogy in family companies
• Just-and-equitable-winding-up

Read case analysis

R. v. T.B.

Court

Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal

The trial judge adequately assessed credibility, addressed the material inconsistency concerning the Crown letter, correctly applied the principle that a single credible witness can ground conviction (no general corroboration rule for s.267), and either did not err under s.276 or any error caused no prejudice; therefore no reversible error occurred and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Credibility assessment
• Corroboration
• Section 276 third-party sexual activity rule
• Curative proviso s.686(1)(b)
• Assault with a weapon (s.267)

Read case analysis

Cline v. Fédération de Gymnastique du Québec

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held the pre-certification order was not an appealable order and quashed the appeal. Alternatively, leave to appeal was refused.

• Territorial jurisdiction
• Real and substantial connection
• Certification
• Case management
• Limited appeal/leave to appeal
• Interlocutory orders

Read case analysis

Fraser v. Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

The appellant failed to meet the legal tests for admitting fresh evidence and failed to establish grounds warranting leave to appeal; accordingly the motion to adduce fresh evidence was dismissed, leave to appeal was denied and the appeal was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Admission of fresh evidence
• Leave to appeal
• Costs
• Procedural fairness

Read case analysis

Ontario (Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development) v. Greater Sudbury (City)

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Leave to appeal was denied because the Crown failed to establish the high threshold for s.131 leave: the issues advanced were fact driven or mixed fact and law rather than pure questions of law, the POAC applied established legal principles (including the factors from Martin J. in Greater Sudbury) and there was no demonstrable legal error of sufficient public importance to justify this Court's intervention.

Source excerpt

• Due diligence defence
• Control over workplace
• Construction regulation compliance
• Leave to appeal standards

Read case analysis

Hartin Estate (Re)

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The extension to perfect was denied as moot because transcripts are required and the perfection deadline has not yet started; dismissal for delay was refused because the appellant, a self‑represented litigant, was likely confused about transcript obligations, the delay was short and not prejudicial, and a single judge likely lacks jurisdiction to finally dismiss the appeal; the court directed the appellant to either file proof by March 31, 2025 that she has ordered all required transcripts or to bring a Rule 61.09(4) motion for relief from compliance, failing which the respondent may move to…

Source excerpt

• Perfection of appeal
• Transcripts
• Dismissal for delay
• Court of appeal procedural rules
• Self-represented litigant accommodations

Read case analysis