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 Federal Court dismissed Shari Campbell’s judicial review of VAC’s refusal to reimburse inpatient treatment and travel costs, finding the decision reasonable.
On the evidence the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that either Dr. La Berge or IHA breached the applicable standard of care or that any such breach caused the plaintiff's bowel injury; the court accepted defendant expert evidence that Dr. La Berge met the standard of care and that IHA's MDR practices met the standard; informed consent was given or, objectively, the plaintiff would have proceeded in any event; claim dismissed.
Source excerpt
Parts 1 and 3 of the Further Amended Notice of Civil Claim were struck out with leave to amend because the pleadings contained substantial amounts of evidence and unnecessary material and failed to concisely plead material facts and the specific elements required to meet statutory immunities and vicarious liability issues; summary judgment was denied because affidavit evidence was inadequate, hearsay concerns and disputed records created genuine issues for trial; security for costs was denied because plaintiff's impecuniosity and steps taken to address finances made an order disproportionate…
Source excerpt
The court held that claims brought on behalf of the deceased for non-pecuniary loss are barred by WESA and therefore those portions of the NOCC must be struck; conversely, it is not plain and obvious that Mr. Dwyer's personal claims — including as substitute decision-maker and for negligent infliction of mental distress related to the defendants' alleged failure to respect an advance directive and MRA — have no prospect of success, so those claims may proceed and the plaintiff is granted leave to amend; the Rule 9-6 summary dismissal application was refused as premature pending amendment.
Source excerpt
The chambers judge erred in concluding ss.26.2 and 53 HPA violated s.96; those provisions create privilege/confidentiality but do not bar judicial review because the Supreme Court Civil Rules (R.7-1) allow courts to order further and better descriptions and to inspect documents in camera to determine the validity and scope of privilege, and restricting admissibility of evidence is not equivalent to barring access to superior courts.
Source excerpt
The Court held that (1) the APA permits successive extensions of 30-day temporary orders provided each extension is judicially authorized; (2) the s.20(2) statutory test ('reasonable grounds to believe' and that the order is in the adult's best interests) applies to initial temporary orders and to extensions, with the reviewing judge required to reassess circumstances and timeliness at each renewal; (3) the judge did not err in applying the 'reasonable grounds to believe' standard to both elements and properly balanced protection and autonomy; (4) an APA temporary order may lawfully and tempo…
Source excerpt
Health Canada did not have the requisite legal or de facto control over PHAC-held immunization reports; Health Canada performed a reasonable search of records under its control; mandamus is not an available remedy in proceedings under subsection 41(1) of the Access to Information Act, and the Federal Court did not err in dismissing the applicant's review or in its discretionary rulings.
Source excerpt
Fresh evidence excluded under the Palmer test as irrelevant and unlikely to affect the trial outcome; statutory interpretation of s.7 of the Hospital Insurance Regulations and definitions in the Health Services and Insurance Act and Hospitals Act require Minister-approved hospitals for reimbursement, and absence of Minister approval for the private Ontario clinic (Clearpoint) and lack of preapproval for travel/accommodation disqualified entitlement to reimbursement; allegation of judicial bias failed because disagreement with findings does not meet the heavy onus for reasonable apprehension o…
Source excerpt
The applicant satisfied the three‑part Sierra Club/Sherman Estate test: the MAID‑related medical information is sufficiently sensitive to implicate core dignity and privacy interests (important public interest); a publication ban and use of initials were necessary because the information was not public and modern dissemination risks made alternatives inadequate; and the limited measures sought were proportionate because they preserve public access to the legal issues while protecting the applicant’s identity. The motion is granted accordingly.
Source excerpt
Because binding appellate authority requires the claimant remain disabled through to the hearing and the medical evidence after 31 December 2015 is sparse, dated, and equivocal, the claimant failed to prove continuous severe and prolonged disability to the hearing date and thus is not eligible for CPP disability benefits.
Source excerpt
Explore more
