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 Norcope and Intact’s appeals and Yukon’s cross-appeal in a concrete apron defect dispute, upholding liability, damages, bond liability, and costs.
The court excluded a functional capacity/cost of future care report and an economist report under s. 5(6) of the Regulation, finding the plaintiff met the statutory criteria.
Family law trial on valuation and division of business interests in Simetra and Triquest, with child support recalculated and spousal support dismissed.
The court found the plaintiff suffered a mild traumatic brain injury and whiplash in a 2016 pedestrian accident, awarding $369,671 in damages.
Appeal dismissed because the Appellant failed to meet its burden to prove SR&ED: the asserted problems were design objectives or solvable by routine engineering known in the field, the testing lacked formulated hypotheses and a methodical scientific procedure, contemporaneous records were inadequate and unreliable, and the Appellant's expert evidence was inadmissible for non‑compliance with the Rules and Code; therefore the expenditures did not qualify as SR&ED.
Source excerpt
The court found the driver negligent in a crosswalk collision but held the pedestrian contributorily negligent. Liability was apportioned 75/25 and damages were reduced accordingly.
Trial judgment awarding damages for chronic pain, loss of earning capacity, future care, pension loss and special damages after a motor vehicle accident.
The court dismissed claims for lost lot sales and Road Utilities costs, but awarded Shuswap Lake Utilities Ltd. $76,883.27 for water bypass costs under the Expropriation Act.
The trial judge's factual findings — that the firebreak was a limited-purpose bulldozer swath not agreed to as a boundary, that the respondents' survey and corroborating evidence were preferred, and that adverse possession was not established — were supported by the evidence and correctly applied the law; appellate interference was not warranted, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's characterization of the contract as a method specification contract, concluding that where the owner specified materials and methods and the contractor complied, the owner retained the risk of performance; the appellate court rejected the trial judge's adverse findings about counsel's improper influence on experts but reduced the full indemnity costs awarded to Leveque by 20% to substantial indemnity.
Source excerpt
Explore more
