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 Tribunal granted the Safe Home-Safe Work Coalition interested person status in K.L.’s human rights complaint, but limited its participation to avoid duplication and delay.
The Tribunal dismissed the complaint as abandoned because the complainant failed to communicate or advance his case for 18 months despite multiple notices and opportunities, causing prejudice to the respondent and impeding timely resolution; the Tribunal was satisfied the complainant had notice of the consequences of non‑participation.
Source excerpt
The motion judge did not err: the statement of claim failed to plead specific words or material facts tying the defendant to the alleged harms and therefore did not give the defendant notice of the case to be met; the motion judge properly concluded an amendment would not cure the deficiencies and his refusal to allow amendment and costs award were within discretion and are upheld.
Source excerpt
Judicial review of a Canadian Human Rights Commission decision severing older allegations was dismissed; the Court found the severance reasonable and awarded costs.
The decision turns on credibility: the hearing panel found major omissions and late, material amendments to the PIFs, implausible explanations for prior withdrawn family claims and inconsistencies about family ethnicity, and no independent evidence of Roma origin; on the balance of probabilities these credibility defects meant the claimant failed to prove she is a Convention refugee or person in need of protection.
Source excerpt
The claimant failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Hungarian state protection was unavailable or ineffective; her single police report was recorded and there exist statutory, judicial and NGO remedies for Roma in Hungary; alleged discrimination did not amount to persecution; therefore she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court of Appeal (Layden-Stevenson J.A.) held that the appropriate standard of review for the CHRT on the issues in question is reasonableness; the CHRT’s decision was unreasonable because it failed to conduct the required global balancing of factors and contained internally inconsistent findings regarding purpose and accommodation, warranting setting aside the CHRT decision and remitting the matter to a differently constituted CHRT.
Source excerpt
The claimants failed to prove a well‑founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground because their experiences amounted to discrimination below the persecution threshold, they did not pursue available state remedies, and there was no credible evidence of a personal risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment; therefore the refugee claims fail.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal found the complainant's conduct was inappropriate and perceived as intimidating by the expert; to protect the integrity of the hearing and the willingness of expert witnesses to testify, the Tribunal ordered that the complainant is forbidden to approach or speak to the opposing party's expert witnesses unless the respondent's counsel are present.
Source excerpt
The panel rejected the claim because the claimant failed to prove a reasonable possibility of persecution or personal risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment on return: objective evidence of amnesty and significant voluntary returns, the passage of time since past detentions, the absence of continuing targeting of the claimant or evidence that his post-2000 overseas activities had been known to Mauritanian authorities, and evidence indicating discrimination rather than persecution meant the protection thresholds under ss.96-97 IRPA were not met.
Source excerpt
Explore more
