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
On appeal from sexual assault and bail-breach convictions, the court dismissed the ineffective-assistance challenge, but corrected a pretrial credit error and granted 13 additional days.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed a motion to declare the appellant a vexatious litigant, holding there was no ongoing proceeding before the court.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Cinnabar Brown Holdings Ltd.’s appeal, upholding a vexatious proceedings declaration, refusal to set aside a consent order, and approval of a sale of property.
The Court dismissed the appeal: the cellphone search did not breach s.8 because videos reasonably fell within the warrant's categories and the broader search was conducted in good faith and within scope; any late disclosure of the ITO did not materially prejudice the appellant's s.7 rights given the adjournment and opportunity to bring a Charter application; and the trial judge adequately accounted for pre‑sentence custody mitigation, so no sentencing error was made.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal for British Columbia refused to reopen a concluded appeal before entry of the formal order, finding no clear and compelling basis for doing so.
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to establish that the trial judge committed material errors, misapprehended the evidence, or was biased; the trial judge's determinations are entitled to deference and do not warrant appellate intervention.
Source excerpt
The judge exercised discretion under r.61.06(1) and concluded the criteria in subsection (a) were met: the appeal is frivolous and vexatious, the appellants conceded the debts and acknowledged forbearance agreements, adverse credibility findings were made including abandonment of forgery allegations, and the appellants appear unable or unwilling to pay; accordingly it was just to order security of $50,000 for the appeal, $147,453.26 for the costs order below, and award $15,000 costs for the motion.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court applied the correct legal tests and exercised its discretion without committing palpable and overriding error in denying the extension of time and waiver of fees; the appellant may not introduce new constitutional issues for the first time on appeal and has not met the Palmer criteria for fresh evidence, therefore the appeal and related motions must be dismissed.
Source excerpt
The motion judge properly applied r.30.08(2) and r.60.12, found deliberate and lengthy non-compliance with a consent order and production obligations, and reasonably concluded that striking the Statement of Defence was a proportionate and appropriate sanction; the appeal on the main issue is dismissed while the costs award was adjusted for a calculation error.
Source excerpt
The trial judge correctly identified and applied the governing principles for recognition evidence, reasonably found the eyewitnesses sufficiently familiar and able to observe the appellant, made credibility and reliability findings within her fact‑finding role, and the convictions are supportable on any reasonable view of the evidence; therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
