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 of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Tehama Group Inc.’s appeal from the dismissal of its application to set aside an arbitral award under the UNCITRAL Model Law.
The Ontario Court of Appeal reinstated an arbitrator’s award requiring Chubb to pay Ms. Singh’s benefits, holding the appeal judge wrongly treated Chubb and Zurich as equal-priority insurers.
The Court has jurisdiction to consider applications to amend leave applications after the s.60 30-day period, but must refuse amendments that are so significant they effectively constitute an application for extension of time; the proposed amendments here fundamentally reframed the appeal and therefore were dismissed as an impermissible extension of time.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed: the arbitrator acted within the scope of the parties' agreed last best offer process and did not exceed authority; because parties agreed no reasons would be provided and limited the arbitrator to selecting one complete offer, the court cannot infer or substitute findings to establish substantive legal error; DYD was a party to the arbitration; spreadsheets submitted did not introduce new evidence or cause material unfairness; clauses precluding child support review are unenforceable but severable and do not invalidate the award; costs awarded to respondent.
Source excerpt
The appeal is allowed in part because the arbitrator erred in principle by conflating guardianship with parenting responsibilities and making an interim order removing guardianship without a s.51 application or exhausting less intrusive parenting-responsibility measures; however the arbitrator did not err in directing immediate commencement of REACH reunification therapy for the youngest child, in leaving specific parenting-time structure to REACH, in declining to appoint counsel for the older children, or in fixing modest costs, and the travel-notice regime and Parenting Coordinator's jurisd…
Source excerpt
The Court dismissed both the appeal and cross‑appeal because the central questions identified by the parties were predominantly mixed questions of fact and law arising from the arbitrator's factual findings and application of legal tests; the arbitrator reasonably concluded the PHO Order did not apply to the respondent given his unique factual arrangement and did not err in law in his interpretation; the cross‑appellant failed to identify an extricable question of law arising from the remedy award.
Source excerpt
Although Mr. Jia established enrichment and corresponding deprivation tied to an expectation of equity, his equitable claim is satisfied because his receipt of Shengkong shares via the Share Transfer Agreement constituted a juristic reason (contractual allocation of enterprise equity) justifying Skycope's retention of his contributions; additionally, his breach of fiduciary duties would have barred equitable remuneration if the claim otherwise succeeded; therefore the equitable claim to Skycope shares is dismissed and costs awarded to Skycope.
Source excerpt
The March 5, 2025 correspondence did not, on its proper objective construction and having regard to surrounding communications and conduct, amount to a contractual "finding" that would trigger GC 8.2.2; alternatively, the Respondent is estopped from asserting the March 5 letter was a finding because its words and conduct reasonably induced the Applicant to treat the communications as settlement negotiations; accordingly the Applicant's delay claim remains extant and the parties are entitled to pursue the contractually prescribed ADR or court processes under GC 8.2.7 and GC 8.3.1.
Source excerpt
The December 19, 2024 without prejudice settlement letter is inadmissible for lack of a demonstrated exception (no evidence of detrimental reliance); the s.7 technical prerequisites are arguably met because 2197 Otter Point Properties is arguably a party to the contract and the subject matter is arbitrable; settlement offers (including references to Rule 9-1) do not, as a class, constitute steps in proceedings nor give rise to waiver or estoppel absent evidence of detrimental reliance; the entirety of the dispute, including claims against Graeme Mann, is sufficiently intertwined with the cont…
Source excerpt
The court refused to cancel the 2025 lien under s.25(2)(b) because Mazzei established an arguable right to a lien, but found the evidentiary record insufficient to support the full claimed quantum; exercising its discretion under s.24 the court ordered security of $350,000 to be paid into court for discharge of the lien and awarded costs to the defendant.
Source excerpt
Explore more
