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 struck an application for judicial review challenging the CBSA’s initiation of an anti-dumping investigation under SIMA, finding the decision not reviewable.
CIPPIC's motion to intervene was dismissed because it failed to establish a sufficient nexus between its expertise and the narrow, fact-specific issues on appeal, did not provide a draft factum or authorities to demonstrate a concrete, non-duplicative contribution, and posed a real risk of expanding the scope of the appeal and prejudicing the parties; the stricter onus applicable to intervention in private disputes reinforced denial.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court of Canada held that fraud by a third party can be attributed to a beneficiary of a counter-guarantee when the beneficiary knew of and participated in it.
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the application because (1) the President of the CBSA did not breach procedural fairness by declining to place voluminous internal calculation spreadsheets before himself or include them in the Statement of Reasons where the decision-maker had access to internal memoranda that summarized and explained the methodologies and results and the record otherwise permitted meaningful review; and (2) the President’s factual and discretionary conclusion that no particular market situation existed in China was reasonable on the record given the evidence and his expe…
Source excerpt
The Tribunal correctly classified the imported polished river rocks under heading 25.17 because the tumbling/polishing process was a purely mechanical process consistent with the permissible processes in Note 1 to Chapter 25 (levigation/physical smoothing) and did not produce an inherent chemical or structural transformation; the stones therefore were not "worked" to the artisanal degree required for heading 68.02. No extricable error of law was made such that the Federal Court of Appeal should overturn the Tribunal's classification under the correctness standard applicable to s.68(1) appeals.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court declined to continue an interim ex parte injunction over three Mercedes-Benz vehicles, finding Intel failed to make full and frank disclosure.
The appeal is dismissed: although the CITT erred in stating that the 'or' in subheading 8516.71 was disjunctive, that error was immaterial; tariff item 8516.71.10 'coffee makers' properly includes appliances that primarily, though not exclusively, make coffee, and the CITT made no legal error in applying the Harmonized System rules or in considering indicia such as design, marketing and distribution when classifying Keurig K40 brewing systems as 'coffee makers'.
Source excerpt
The President reasonably confined the s.76.1 review to matters necessary to implement the WTO Dispute Settlement Body’s rulings as directed by the Minister, conducted the review on the original record without recalculating dumping margins, lawfully applied the decision to the successor entity, and did not breach procedural fairness; accordingly the applications for judicial review were dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal’s order under subsection 76.03(5) is reviewable by this Court and the Tribunal’s interpretation that it could initiate an expiry review excluding Conares’ goods was unreasonable because section 76.03 permits initiation of an expiry review only of an order or finding as a whole; however, the Court declined to grant a remedy and dismissed the application as a matter of discretion given the circumstances.
Source excerpt
The court treated the relationship as a bailment and found both parties partially at fault: the defendant breached his duty by failing to ensure proper customs documentation and to secure release in Nigeria, and the claimant contributed by undervaluing and overloading the vehicle; liability apportioned 2/3 to the defendant and 1/3 to the claimant, with damages assessed on the accepted values (vehicle $1,111.25; goods $15,000) and payment of the filing fee, resulting in a judgment of $13,606.85 CAD for the claimant.
Source excerpt
Explore more
