Esheria Canada Case Law
Sign in
Canada Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Canada Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter Canada case law

Results update automatically as you type.

Canada decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Contract law 2026 BCSC 883

Keltic (Prior) Development Limited Partnership v. Van Renesse Investment Company Ltd.

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court struck multiple portions of the amended response because, assuming the pleaded facts, they disclosed no reasonable defence, were irrelevant or prejudicial: commercial negotiation precluded contra proferentem arguments; indemnity and "as is" clauses did not permit contracting out of the EMA; a purchase agreement with an indemnity clause is not an insurance contract under the Insurance Act; limitation and offset defences were inadequately pleaded. The court refused to extend time to file the proposed counterclaim because the proposed claim was legally weak, materially different in sub…

Source excerpt

  • Indemnity clause
  • Contaminated site remediation
  • Strike pleadings
  • Counterclaim extension
  • Contra proferentem
  • Duty of utmost good faith
Read case analysis
Class actions 2026 BCCA 187

Ramrup v. Rayner

Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held the chambers judge did not err in exercising his discretion to convert the action to a class proceeding or in granting leave to amend the NOCC; however it was premature and an error in principle to fix the commencement date for tolling under s.38.1 of the CPA at the conversion stage without a fuller record, so the order selecting October 3, 2022 was vacated and the respondent was granted leave to file a second further amended notice of civil claim.

Source excerpt

  • Conversion to class proceeding
  • Certification
  • Limitation period tolling
  • Amendment of pleadings
  • Judicial discretion
Read case analysis
Contract law 2026 BCSC 749

4 Noses Brewing Company, LLC v. Specific Engineering Solutions Ltd.

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

The default judgment was set aside because the defendant's failure to file a response was not shown to be wilful or deliberate, the defendant applied promptly after learning of the judgment, the defendant advanced defences worthy of investigation (reliance on the Sales Order limited warranty, challenge to the validity/authority behind the 2024 Agreement, and a limitation-period defence), and the late affidavit was properly admitted as relevant and not prejudicial; setting aside the default judgment best serves the interests of justice.

Source excerpt

  • Default judgment
  • Setting aside default judgment
  • Miracle feeds test
  • Admission of late affidavits
  • Limitation defence
  • Limited warranty interpretation
Read case analysis
Securities law 2026 BCSC 674

Larouche v. PGM ResidualCo Holdings Inc.

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

The application for leave was dismissed because the petitioner failed to file/adduce admissible affidavits in this petition (cannot rely wholesale on affidavits filed in a separate proceeding), failed to provide sufficient credible evidence or properly pleaded material facts to satisfy the s.140.8 leave threshold, and most claims based on documents released before November 6, 2021 are statute-barred under s.140.94; consequently leave was denied and nunc pro tunc relief rejected.

Source excerpt

  • Secondary market claim
  • Misrepresentation
  • Leave to commence action (s.140.8)
  • Evidentiary admissibility of affidavits
  • Pleading particularity
  • Limitation periods (s.140.94)
Read case analysis
Professional negligence 2026 BCSC 574

Lau v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

Court found ICBC, Wright and Epstein breached duties to Lau (ICBC and Wright breached duty of utmost good faith and failed to investigate; Epstein breached retainer by failing to advise and act regarding the November 17, 2015 offer). However claims against ICBC and Wright are statute-barred by the Limitation Act as discovered by August 31, 2017. Causation for full avoidance of loss was not proven on balance of probabilities, but the court found defendants' breaches caused a lost chance to avoid or reduce loss and awarded loss-of-chance damages of 15% of Lau's shortfall against Epstein alone (…

Source excerpt

  • Duty of utmost good faith
  • Solicitors' standard of care
  • Loss of chance
  • Causation
  • Settlement approval for persons under disability
  • Discoverability under limitation act
Read case analysis
Civil procedure 2026 BCSC 646

Krytskyy v. Canil

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

The appeal is allowed and the NOCC is renewed and may be served on Dr. Abdalvand (and alternatively he is added as a defendant) because the delay was attributable to the plaintiff's lawyers, Dr. Abdalvand is a necessary party, no actual prejudice from the delay was identified beyond the presumption, renewal or joinder best serves the interests of justice, and the addition will not materially delay proceedings.

Source excerpt

  • Renewal of notice of civil claim
  • Service of process
  • Limitation periods
  • Adding a defendant
  • Prejudice from delay
  • Discretionary relief
Read case analysis
Civil procedure 2026 BCSC 498

Harbut v. Berti

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court exercised its discretion to adjourn the April 7, 2026 trial because the prejudice to defendants from proceeding without further discovery and expert preparation outweighed the plaintiffs' prejudice from delay; the court granted leave to Burley Boys and Metro to add BITS and Maddison as third parties because there is arguable material supporting contribution/indemnity claims and uncertainty about limitation expiry, and directed that any limitation defence by the proposed third parties be determined in the third‑party proceedings on a fuller evidentiary record.

Source excerpt

  • Adjournment
  • Third‑party notice
  • Contribution and indemnity
  • Limitation period discoverability
  • Expert evidence
  • Discovery timing
Read case analysis
Limitation law 2026 BCSC 421

Chamberlain v. Matanaj

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

The limitation defence was dismissed because the court found the plaintiff did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the distinct negligent acts and their more serious consequences that underpin the present claim before September 7, 2021; expert reports produced after that date disclosed materially new allegations and the defendant's contemporaneous assurances supported a reasonable expectation of improvement, so the claim was discovered only after Sept 7, 2021.

Source excerpt

  • Limitation act s.6
  • Limitation act s.8(d)
  • Discovery of claim
  • Summary disposition
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 BCSC 260

Miller v. Richards

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

On the balance of probabilities the parties permanently separated in September 2021, so the claim filed December 22, 2023 was brought after the two‑year limitation period in FLA s.198 and must be dismissed; correspondence between counsel in Sept–Dec 2023 did not constitute active family dispute resolution to suspend the limitation period. Alternatively, if limitation does not bar the claim, claimant is entitled only to 50% of the condominium's increased value during 2012–2021 and all other family property division is refused because equal division would be contrary to the parties' legitimate…

Source excerpt

  • Marriage-like relationship
  • Date of separation
  • Family dispute resolution
  • Limitation period s.198
  • Unequal division s.95
  • Legitimate expectations
Read case analysis
Civil procedure 2026 BCSC 197

Robinson v. Robinson

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

The proposed counterclaims (other than the single allegation that Mr. Robinson failed to cooperate with the insurance claim) are not sufficiently connected to the discrete accounting claim for the Fire Insurance Proceeds and therefore do not satisfy the first stage of the two-part test; alternatively, even if connection existed, Ms. Robinson failed to justify the long delays, most claims appear time-barred or beyond the ultimate limitation period, the claims largely duplicate matters resolved or addressed in the Bevilacqua proceedings and registrar's certificate, and allowing the late counter…

Source excerpt

  • Counterclaim
  • Extension of time
  • Limitation act s.22
  • Equitable charge
  • Constructive trust
  • Accounting
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

Canada decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.