Canada Case Law

R. v. Singh

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Although the appellant meets the financial criteria and would benefit from counsel, the application for a s.684(1) appointment is dismissed because the appeal has no realistic prospect of success: the trial judge's voluntariness and identity findings are supported by the record and attract deference, Legal Aid and an independent counsel review found no arguable basis, and no legal or factual error sufficient to justify appointment was established.

Source excerpt

• Appointment of counsel (s.684(1))
• Voluntariness of police statement
• Mixed statements (exculpatory/inculpatory)
• Eyewitness identification reliability
• Ineffective assistance of counsel
• Bail pending appeal

Read case analysis

Fazio v. Altus Business Consultants Limited

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed Marie Pia Fazio’s appeal from an Associate Judge’s Rule 74 order removing her claim from the court file for lack of jurisdiction and no viable cause of action.

• Rule 74 dismissal/removal of claim
• Ito jurisdiction test
• Ownership presumption s.13(3) copyright act
• Federal vs provincial jurisdiction
• Pleading sufficiency for ip claims
• Proportionality in case management

Read case analysis

Royal Bank of Canada v. MacIntyre

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court set aside the RBC and BDC third party notices under Rule 3-5(8) because they failed to plead facts establishing any entitlement to contribution/indemnity or other connection to the narrow debt claims and would massively and prejudicially expand straightforward debt litigation into broad public law and Charter inquiries; the MacIntyre NOCC was struck under Rule 9-5(1)(a) against AGC and the Province because, assuming pleaded facts true, it was plain and obvious the claims had no reasonable prospect of success given lack of pleaded proximity/duty, statutory immunity (PHA s.92), failur…

Source excerpt

• Third party notice
• Misfeasance in public office
• Negligence
• Statutory immunity
• Charter damages
• Striking pleadings

Read case analysis

R. v. Dennis

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The s.11(b) application was dismissed because, after deducting 21 days of defence delay and 257 days attributable to exceptional circumstances (56 days for the immediate adjournment and 201 apportioned days of cascading delay due to counsel withdrawal/illness), the net delay fell 98 days below the 30‑month presumptive Jordan ceiling; the court applied a contextual apportionment (50/50) of the 402‑day cascading period between March 24, 2025 and May 1, 2026 due to shared responsibility of defence, Crown and court for mitigating delay.

Source excerpt

• Unreasonable delay
• Section 11(b) charter - jordan framework
• Waiver of delay
• Apportionment of cascading delay
• Exceptional circumstances (discrete events)
• Withdrawal/illness of counsel

Read case analysis

United States v. Georgiou

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Ontario Court of Appeal refused to appoint state-funded counsel or amicus, and declined to stay enforcement, finding no arguable appeal and no need for assistance.

• Appointment of counsel / amicus
• Stay of enforcement
• Forfeiture enforcement
• Collateral attack on foreign judgment
• Summary dismissal (manifestly frivolous)
• Charter ss.8 and 15 challenge

Read case analysis

R. v. Cluett

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Trial judge accepted accused's account that he believed the cocaine and MDMA were lost in Mexico and that he was unaware of the methamphetamine in his clothing; that evidence raised a reasonable doubt on actual knowledge and, assuming arguendo recklessness could substitute for knowledge, Crown failed to prove the requisite subjective awareness of risk; accordingly accused acquitted on all counts.

Source excerpt

• Importation (s.6(1) cdsa)
• Mens rea: knowledge, recklessness, wilful blindness
• Search and seizure at airports (cbsa)
• Evidence: circumstantial proof, w.(d.) credibility assessment

Read case analysis

JL v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant produced no new evidence and failed to present an arguable case: the General Division correctly applied ss.44 and 49 CPP to calculate the contributory period and MQP, the record showed only five years of valid contributions, and the statutory scheme is prescriptive leaving no discretion to apply Charter values to alter survivorship entitlement.

Source excerpt

• Canada pension plan
• Survivor's pension
• Minimum qualifying period
• Adverse-effects discrimination
• Procedural fairness
• Leave to appeal

Read case analysis

Collins v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court granted leave to amend a class proceeding to add breach of contract claims and amended the certification order to add related standing and limitations issues.

• Third-party beneficiary
• Doctrine of privity
• Principled exception to privity
• Standing
• Amendment of pleadings
• Certification order amendment

Read case analysis

Alter v. The University of British Columbia

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal over a registrar-settled order, holding the review decision was appealable and the order should identify the pleadings struck.

• Settlement of orders by registrar
• Appealability of registrar/judicial administrative acts
• Rule 13‑1(14) review
• Striking pleadings under r.9‑5(1)(a)
• Standard of review
• Identification of struck pleadings

Read case analysis

PY v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to raise an arguable case of error in law, fact, jurisdiction, or procedure and supplied no new evidence; the General Division correctly applied OAS Act s.14(5) including prior-year RRSP income in estimated income so no s.18 adjustment was required, and the Charter claim lacked an enumerated or analogous ground and therefore had no chance of success.

Source excerpt

• Old age security
• Allowance for the survivor
• Income estimation and calculation
• Section 15 charter equality
• Leave to appeal
• New evidence

Read case analysis