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 a motion to set aside the refusal to extend time to appeal, finding no error in the motion judge’s discretionary decision.
The refusal to grant sealing or other restrictions on public access was interlocutory because it is collateral to the substantive family-law issues (parenting, relocation, support) that remain undecided; accordingly, the appeal route is to the Divisional Court with leave and the Court of Appeal will not hear the appeal or reconstitute as the Divisional Court.
Source excerpt
Judicial review of a removal deferral refusal was dismissed. The Court found the officer reasonably assessed the evidence, country conditions, and children’s interests.
Applying s.52 CHRA and the Sherman Estate framework the Tribunal found that disclosure of identifying initials and case‑specific details in categories 2 and 3 posed a real and substantial risk of undue hardship to third‑party First Nations children and families due to the mosaic effect and small‑community context, and that limited redactions were necessary and proportionate. The Tribunal denied confidentiality for ISC file/item numbers (category 4) and for External Appeals Committee profiles (category 5) because AGC failed to meet the high evidentiary threshold; category 1 remains under inter…
Source excerpt
Federal Court granted judicial review of a refused H&C application, finding the best-interests-of-the-child analysis unreasonable and remitting the matter to a different officer.
The court found the level of parental conflict significantly impairs their capacity to act in the child's best interests and that appointment of independent legal counsel under s.203 of the Family Law Act is necessary to protect the child's best interests, particularly given serious mental health concerns and the need for advocacy regarding discharge and after-care; relocation/discharge issues were adjourned pending further and adequate medical evidence.
Source excerpt
Leave to intervene was granted to Justice for Children and Youth because it demonstrated significant expertise and a genuine interest, its submissions would be useful and not duplicative on the s.15 and related issues in the appeals concerning the CPP retroactive cap, and intervention would serve the interests of justice; memorandum limited to 30 pages and intervention granted without costs.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed two judicial review applications challenging refusals of humanitarian and compassionate permanent residence applications for two children sponsored by their father.
The court appointed counsel under s. 202 of the Family Law Act to convey the children’s views, but refused a s. 203 child-advocate order and a s. 211 assessment.
The Court of Appeal held the application judge erred by failing to credit uncontradicted expert and OCL evidence that the children’s views were independent and that, on the balance of probabilities, the children would suffer serious harm if returned to Kuwait under s.23 CLRA; consequently Ontario may exercise jurisdiction to determine custody and access. The court also held a s.40(3) return order must not be executed while a refugee claim is pending because of non-refoulement and that the return order in this case was erroneous.
Source excerpt
Explore more
