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 dismissed an application to extend time to seek leave to appeal a stay order, holding the proposed appeal was bound to fail.
L.G. did not meet the statutory MQP: her contributory period (after exclusions) made the one‑third threshold exceed 10 years, so the 10‑year rule applied, and she had valid contributions in only five years—insufficient to qualify the appellant for CPP death or survivor benefits.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court of Canada restored a sexual assault conviction, holding the trial judge’s reasons were sufficient and warning against overreliance on generalized disability evidence.
The Federal Court set aside the denial of Dana Robinson’s MSO authorization, finding the decision engaged s. 15 Charter rights but failed to consider them.
The Tribunal exercised its discretion to grant a limited adjournment until the Federal Court of Appeal issues reasons in the appeal of Justice LeBlanc’s decision because the outstanding issue is narrow (end date for lost wages), there is no apparent prejudice to the parties from a limited delay, the complainant has already received substantial partial monetary payment, and an FCA decision may eliminate or clarify the Tribunal’s role; a sine die adjournment was refused as speculative and prejudicial to expeditious resolution.
Source excerpt
The request to indefinitely adjourn was denied because the Tribunal must proceed expeditiously and only in exceptional circumstances will it suspend hearings with no end date; parties cannot condition settlement payments and research funding on the Tribunal agreeing to an indefinite adjournment when those commitments can be pursued without suspending the Tribunal process and after more than five years of mediation no exceptional circumstances justified an indefinite stay.
Source excerpt
The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Board of Inquiry's finding of discrimination because the Board applied an incorrect analytical approach, failed to require or demonstrate a connection that the denial was "based on" the complainant's disability, and unreasonably substituted individual medical need for the statutory comparator/factor analysis; the Board's decision fell outside a range of reasonable outcomes and was legally unreasonable.
Source excerpt
Federal Court dismissed a judicial review, finding no breach of procedural fairness in accommodations for a hearing-impaired claimant and no error in the state protection analysis.
On judicial review of an H&C refusal, the Federal Court held that dependent adults are not “children” for s. 25 IRPA and that relevant evidence had been wrongly removed.
The Federal Court allowed judicial review of a refugee refusal, set aside the decision, and ordered a redetermination by a different member.
Explore more
