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 found oppression in Teknocan’s affairs, ordered a buyout of Mirage’s shares, continued injunction relief, appointed an interim receiver, and awarded special costs.
Section 32C(1) of the EFDA does not impose a personal statutory duty on a licensed funeral director to verify the identity of remains prior to cremation because the provision applies to holders of a funeral home licence, not individual funeral directors; the Board erred in applying s.32C(1) to Curry and the hearing judge did not err in his construction or in the costs award, which the Court adjusted to $2,000 inclusive of disbursements.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal allowed a security-for-costs motion in a family-law appeal, ordering the appellant to post $2,500 and staying the appeal until payment.
The Court dismissed the appeals because the trial judge applied correct legal principles and his discretionary factual findings (credibility, classification of assets, unequal division under s.13 of the Matrimonial Property Act due to the appellant's surreptitious withdrawal of $200,000, denial of spousal support given the short non-integrated marriage and appellant's financial independence, and approval of remote testimony under the Rules and inherent jurisdiction in pandemic conditions) were entitled to deference; unjust enrichment claims were unnecessary where the Act governed, valuation w…
Source excerpt
The Yukon Court of Appeal held that dissenting shareholders are not immune from costs on appeal under s. 193(11)(b) of the YBCA. The appellant received costs on Scale 2.
The appeal is dismissed because the Federal Court did not commit a reviewable error: the judge permissibly dismissed the judicial review for failure to post security for costs after remittal, written representations were appropriate, there was no procedural unfairness in service or timing, the appellant provided no viable explanation or evidence of inability to comply, and no palpable and overriding error or error of law was shown.
Source excerpt
The trial judge committed legal error by failing to account for the application of an otherwise exempt inheritance, paid to the bankruptcy trustee, to joint matrimonial debts when calculating matrimonial property division; that omission requires remittal to the Supreme Court for re-determination. The spousal support award was upheld because the trial judge applied correct legal principles and did not commit a palpable and overriding error.
Source excerpt
Because the final quantum of reduced spousal support and insurance benefits remains to be determined by an application judge, those unsettled substantive issues constitute 'unusual circumstances' justifying departure from the usual rule; the Court set aside the application judge's costs order but reserved costs of the application below and any further application to the application judge, and awarded the appellant costs of the appeal in the amount of $13,000.
Source excerpt
Costs were refused because the applicant achieved divided success and his conduct and late admissions unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings; his settlement offer was untimely and contained conditions that could not legally be accepted, so it did not justify awarding costs.
Source excerpt
The court decided costs after a committeeship petition under the Patients Property Act, finding the petitioners acted in good faith and allocating costs accordingly.
Explore more
