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 dismissed judicial review of VIU’s two-year student suspension, finding the decision reasonable, the appeal process lawful, and the Charter not engaged.
The Federal Court reviewed the 2022 Emergencies Act invocation, addressing standing, mootness, and the legality of the federal emergency measures.
The Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal because the adversarial context was inadequate, judicial economy did not justify expending resources on a past, discontinued order, and sensitivity to the judicial role precluded issuing an advisory ruling about discontinued public health measures; consequently the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed A.T.’s appeal, holding that involuntary detention may be based on the underlying disorder and future risk, not only active symptoms at hearing.
The NSCLA was denied public interest standing because it failed to demonstrate a sufficiently concrete and well-developed factual record and thus did not show the existence of a serious justiciable issue warranting standing; independently, the court declined to hear the merits because the matter was moot and the NSCLA did not establish exceptional circumstances or a sufficient public interest to justify allocating scarce judicial resources or risking undue intrusion into executive emergency decision-making.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed a judicial review of a Mental Health Review Board detention decision, finding the petitioner met the MHA criteria and no bias was shown.
La Cour d’appel a accueilli en partie la demande d’intervention d’ARPA Canada, en la limitant à des observations sur le pluralisme institutionnel et l’effet intersectionnel des atteintes à l’art. 2.
The court allowed CLAS to intervene in a support-and-assistance appeal under the AGA, but limited its submissions to the statutory framework of that Act.
Judicial review was granted after the Court found the review panel misread s. 25 of the Mental Health Act and failed to assess current impairment at the hearing.
The Federal Court dismissed motions for a stay of citizenship-revocation provisions, finding the moving parties had not shown irreparable harm because judicial review offered an automatic stay.
Explore more
