Canada Case Law

Bilsbury v. Saint Mary’s University

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The Amended Record filed March 2, 2026 was not complete; the record must consist of all materials that were before the Senate Executive Committee. The Respondent must produce a paper Record comprising the March 2, 2026 Amended Record with specified additions and corrections: all hyperlinked documents used in submissions (with best efforts to retrieve broken links or a notation in the index if unobtainable), fulsome versions of missing-content PDFs (reactivation applications at Tab B(2) and Tab C(1)), attachments to the November 30, 2023 email consolidated in the same tab, and the hearing note…

Source excerpt

• Judicial review
• Record production
• Administrative record
• Admission of fresh evidence
• Deliberative secrecy
• Tribunal/member notes

Read case analysis

Bryzzhev v. University of British Columbia

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Given the unresolved and potentially determinative legal issues about the scope of both the common law academic immunity and statutory immunity in s.69(2) of the University Act, and because a related divisional appeal (Easley) may clarify those issues, it was contrary to the interests of justice to require the indigent appellant to post security that could prevent pursuit of an appeal; the chambers judge's security order was therefore set aside.

Source excerpt

• University immunity
• Academic matters immunity
• Security for costs
• Dismissal for abandonment
• Strike under rule 9-5(1)(a)
• University act s.69(2) interpretation

Read case analysis

Concordia International College v. Takatsuki

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The counterclaim is an impermissible collateral attack and abuse of process because the Private Training Act and regulations provide the statutory administrative mechanism (internal dispute resolution, PTIRU complaints and trustee adjudication) for the plaintiff's complaints about dismissal and tuition refunds; alternatively, on the merits the plaintiff did not prove breach of contract, procedural fairness claim is not actionable in this civil suit, and negligent misrepresentation claims fail as they concerned future promises or lacked reasonable reliance and causation.

Source excerpt

• Collateral attack
• Procedural fairness
• Student dismissal
• Tuition refund
• Statutory administrative remedy
• Credibility assessment

Read case analysis

Akemaru v. Vancouver Community College

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The petition was struck because the substantive discrimination complaints fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and cannot be the subject of common‑law judicial review, and the remaining challenged acts (the interim Feedback Response and internal Investigation Findings) were internal, non‑state, and non‑final administrative actions not amenable to judicial review; accordingly the petition disclosed no reasonable claim and constituted an abuse of process under Rule 9-5.

Source excerpt

• Rule 9-5 striking pleadings
• Jurisdiction of human rights tribunal
• Duty to accommodate
• Procedural fairness
• State‑action requirement for judicial review
• Abuse of process

Read case analysis

Guimond v. Chehab

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The parenting coordinator had jurisdiction under the court's prior order and the FLA/regulations and her determination was, on its face, reasonable in balancing educational continuity and cultural/family connections; however a drafting oversight rendered the clause unusable by the claimant who is a teacher, so the court allowed the application in part and amended the clause wording to restore fairness while otherwise upholding the determination.

Source excerpt

• Parenting coordination
• Setting aside determinations
• Best interests of the child
• Reasonableness review

Read case analysis

R (H.C.) v. Ontario Special Education Tribunal

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal dismissed a motion for reconsideration as moot after the Divisional Court granted anonymization and a publication ban.

• Mootness
• Publication ban
• Anonymization
• Stay of proceedings
• Judicial review
• Recusal

Read case analysis

British Columbia (Minister of Education and Child Care) v. Duncan

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Appeal dismissed. It was not plain and obvious that the procedural fairness or bad faith/improper purpose allegations had no reasonable prospect of success; the chambers judge did not err in refusing to strike those allegations and in ordering production of documents (including specified extra‑record communications and a detailed list of Cabinet records) necessary for the court to fulfil its supervisory role on judicial review; document production orders were within the chambers judge's discretion and are entitled to deference.

Source excerpt

• Procedural fairness
• Bad faith
• Improper purpose
• Order in council
• Record on judicial review
• Extra-record evidence

Read case analysis

Ontario (Education) v. Grassroots for Affordable Jewish Education Inc.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Ontario’s appeal succeeds in preserving a motion to strike a Jewish day school funding Charter application. The Court of Appeal holds Adler remains binding and fresh evidence would not change the result.

• Freedom of religion (s.2(a) charter)
• Equality rights (s.15 charter)
• Section 93 constitution act, 1867
• Stare decisis and revisiting precedent (bedford/carter)
• Motion to strike under rule 21.01(1)(b)
• Fresh/further evidence on appeal (barendregt)

Read case analysis

H.W. v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Tribunal's dismissal and denial of reconsideration were not patently unreasonable: the complaints sought direct, per-student funding payable to parents which the School Act and Independent School Act do not provide and the available expense reimbursement regimes are distinct and do not convert ministerial oversight or limited reimbursements into a service customarily available to the public under s.8 of the Code; therefore there was no reasonable prospect of success and reconsideration was properly refused.

Source excerpt

• Judicial review
• Dismissal under s.27(1)(c) human rights code
• Reconsideration
• Homeschooling funding
• Discrimination in services customarily available to the public
• Standard of review (patent unreasonableness)

Read case analysis

The Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique v. British Columbia

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Registrar limited factums in a complex s. 23 Charter appeal to 60 pages per side and a 10-page reply, finding 120 pages excessive.

• Section 23 canadian charter rights
• Remedies
• Case management
• Factum length
• Standard of review for factual findings
• Case-management

Read case analysis