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 application to adjourn was dismissed because the defendants’ request was untimely, the prejudice to the plaintiff from delay (financial hardship, loss of income, reliance on prepared experts and readiness to proceed) outweighed the defendants’ preference for a jury, and the court concluded a fair trial can be held by a judge alone despite the FIFA scheduling notice.
Source excerpt
Post-trial, the court refused to continue a mistrial by judge alone after defence counsel suffered a medical collapse; this was not “misconduct” under the Rules.
The court dismissed an application to strike the defendants’ jury notice, holding that pandemic rules left no real election to make until a new trial was set.
The court dismissed defendants’ application to strike a jury notice in a medical negligence action, finding the case could be conveniently tried by a jury.
The court granted a plaintiff’s adjournment request so a scheduled medical negligence trial could proceed before a jury despite COVID-19 jury-trial suspension rules.
The stay is dismissed because the appellant failed to show a serious question with strong merits (appeal likely interlocutory and merits weak), failed to demonstrate irreparable harm from proceeding to a judge-alone trial, and the balance of convenience favors refusing the stay given excessive delay in bringing the ten-year-old matter to trial and the regional unavailability of civil jury trials due to COVID-19; the motion judge did not err in law or exercise her discretion arbitrarily.
Source excerpt
The court denied post-verdict requests for a management fee and tax gross-up, holding both issues were too late to raise after the jury’s verdict.
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal alleging plaintiff’s counsel unfairly personalized the case in opening and closing submissions. Cautionary instructions and no timely objection were decisive.
The majority held the appellant’s convictions for sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching were unreasonable because they were irreconcilable with the jury’s acquittal on sexual assault on the same evidence; J.F. is authoritative guidance that inconsistent verdicts cannot be cured on appeal by asserting jury confusion about legally correct instructions where the Crown has not successfully appealed the acquittal; accordingly the convictions were quashed and acquittals entered on those counts; the Crown was granted an extension of time to cross-appeal but that cross-appeal was dism…
Source excerpt
The court dismissed a post-judgment mistrial application for lack of jurisdiction and awarded the plaintiff costs at Scale B and disbursements.
Explore more
