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
La Cour d’appel de l’Ontario a conclu que l’ordonnance Raki était interlocutoire et que l’appel devait plutôt être porté à la Cour divisionnaire avec autorisation.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario refused leave for a non-lawyer to represent a corporation after finding repeated fabricated citations and imposed costs, adjournment, and potential dismissal.
Defendants failed to meet the evidentiary and persuasive burden to obtain a stay because they did not apply for a stay before taking steps in the proceedings, they did not establish readiness and willingness to arbitrate as required by s.7 of the Arbitration Act, and they attorned to the court by filing a defence on the merits; therefore the motion to stay and compel arbitration was dismissed and the action may proceed in court.
Source excerpt
The Court held the appeals were mixed: appeals by Mark and Corey on the Shanontown transaction were dismissed, appeals by Jay and Sheldon on the certification provision were allowed; costs were awarded to Jay and Sheldon against Mark and Corey but reduced to reflect duplication and proportionality, with a specific costs schedule ordered.
Source excerpt
The court refused 1296371 B.C. Ltd.’s request to extend time to appeal a CCAA sale order, finding weak merit and substantial stakeholder prejudice.
Leave to appeal and a stay were dismissed in a CCAA proceeding involving Quest University’s restructuring, disclaimers of subleases, and a reverse vesting order.
Matrimonial property, support and arrears dispute. The court reapportioned assets in the claimant's favor, imputed income to the respondent, set support, and granted divorce.
The misrepresentation claims were statute‑barred because the appellant was aware of all material facts more than two years before bringing the claims; post‑expiry amendments alleged new causes of action unconnected to the original pleading and therefore could not revive barred claims; the motion judge’s dismissal on limitation grounds was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The trial judge correctly found on the facts that respondents' conduct did not meet the statutory test for oppression, any disclosure under s.21 CBCA was innocent and not causative of loss because the appellants consented to the injunction freezing their shares, the conspiracy claim failed for lack of intent to injure, and therefore the appeal is dismissed and costs are properly awarded to the successful respondent (EnGlobe).
Source excerpt
The appeal was dismissed because the undisputed evidence showed 5400 Inc. was placed in consent liquidation and was replaced as general partner by court order, which caused the cessation of its business and income; those events, not the respondent's conduct, produced the appellant's alleged loss, so summary judgment in favour of the respondents was correct.
Source excerpt
Explore more
