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 Ontario Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence, allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial in French.
The Court Martial Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, upholding convictions for sexual assault and rejecting language-rights, Jordan, consent, and evidence challenges.
The Federal Court held that Canadian Heritage failed to properly consult the CSF on a minority-language education agreement, granted declaratory relief, and denied damages.
The Federal Court dismissed Michael Moreau’s Official Languages Act application about damaged bilingual harbour signage, finding the issue was a maintenance matter, not an OLA breach.
The Court of Appeal dismissed a stay application in the opioid class action, finding no irreparable harm and holding that Québec language rights do not apply extraterritorially in BC.
The court found two Malayalam interpreters competent for Mr. Jacob’s trial, despite limited availability and no British Columbia certification, and set trial safeguards for interpretation.
The mistrial is necessary because the interpreter at the trial admitted to providing paraphrase/summarization rather than the continuous, precise, contemporaneous interpretation required by s.14 of the Charter (as explained in R. v. Tran), and the court has jurisdiction to reopen the trial prior to sentencing; accordingly the prior conviction is a nullity and a mistrial is ordered.
Source excerpt
Appellant proved on a balance of probabilities that his s.14 right was breached because the interpreter provided interpreted 100% into Cantonese rather than the requested Taishanese, and given the appellant’s unilingual Taishanese background, age, limited education, mental health and hearing issues there was a real possibility he did not understand parts of the proceedings; fresh evidence was admissible and remedy is a new trial.
Source excerpt
Breach of s.530(3) occurred at first appearance; appellant clearly elected trial in French and never waived that right in a free and informed manner because he was not advised of the nature and extent of s.530 rights; the Crown failed on the balance of probabilities to show absence of prejudice; therefore the verdict of not criminally responsible was quashed and a new trial in French ordered.
Source excerpt
Appeal dismissed. The Court held subsection 4(1) of the ATA subjects airport authorities to applicable parts of the OLA and, in consequence, the authority's head office is subject to duties under s.22; section 23's reference to the 'travelling public' is broad and not limited to holders of travel documents; where breaches occurred the Federal Court properly applied the Ward framework and s.77(4) to award $5,000 for vindication and deterrence; $6,000 in costs was within discretion and upheld.
Source excerpt
Explore more
