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 court held SPECT scan interpretation was not legally reliable for diagnosing TBI in an individual case and excluded Dr. Cohen’s report and related references.
The court acquitted Ms. Grewal of criminal negligence and failing to stop after finding her driving was explained by an epileptic seizure and no mens rea was proven.
The court found no damages for future earning capacity or future care, holding the plaintiff had not shown a real and substantial possibility of relapse or work loss.
Most of Dr. Christians' file is inadmissible as a treating physician's narrative because assessment tools record patient self-reporting and not physician observations, handwritten transcribed notes are abbreviated and do not explain the factual basis for opinions, computerized chart notes contain diagnostic opinions without sufficient explanation of the basis as required by Rule 55.14(6), and several entries were generated to prepare litigation opinions which must comply with Rule 55.04; only the July 11, 2010 letter was admissible as a treating physician's narrative.
Source excerpt
Pre-trial class action ruling on discovery, class notice, and trial evidence in a Paxil birth-defects claim.
The Court held that issue estoppel barred the appellants from recovering as special damages the "extra costs" because entitlement to costs was necessarily determined in the prior final proceedings; and that the Underwood Letter was made on an occasion sufficiently preparatory and intimately connected to contemplated judicial proceedings and therefore protected by absolute privilege, rendering the remaining claims an abuse of process under Rule 21.01(3)(d).
Source excerpt
The court dismissed the defendants’ application for an independent medical examination, finding it would merely bolster existing expert evidence and prejudice the plaintiff’s preparation.
Tribunal dismissed complaint because the applicant failed to establish a credible prima facie case of discrimination; Canadian Forces reasonably and non‑discriminatorily treated the matter as a medical fitness issue given the documentation (physicians' letters, hormone treatment history, inconsistency in applicant's statements), applied relevant medical classification and policies (Common Enrolment Medical Standard, G/O factors), and imposed a G5 limitation justified by unresolved gender identity disorder concerns and attendant deployment/medical support risks.
Source excerpt
The court held the Occupiers Liability Act applied to hospital activities, but dismissed the claim because the hospital’s isolation decisions met the medical standard of care.
Federal Court upheld a Human Rights Tribunal ruling examining CAF medical fitness assessments under Meiorin and dismissed the judicial review application.
Explore more
