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 refused to cancel support arrears, imputed income to the claimant during a period of partial capacity, and later reduced income to his disability payments after total cognitive decline.
Voir dire on whether Dr. Gabor Maté could testify as an expert on addiction, trauma, and intent. The court refused to qualify him and held his evidence inadmissible.
On voir dire, the court qualified a pharmacology expert on drug effects and dosage, but barred opinions on outpatient alcohol-withdrawal management, amnesia diagnosis, and automatism.
The Court dismissed the appeal: the hearing committee did not err in admitting the expert reports or in relying on them for charges because experts relied on primary charts and their own observations; procedural fairness was respected through cross‑examination; compulsory assessment was authorised by the Medical Act and did not breach s.7 or fundamental justice; credibility and findings of professional incompetence were within the committee’s reasonable fact‑finding and analysis; and the costs and penalties imposed fell within a range of reasonable, defensible outcomes given the public protec…
Source excerpt
Apelación disciplinaria de un médico desestimada; el tribunal confirmó las conclusiones de credibilidad, tres episodios de contacto sexual y la suspensión de 15 meses.
Appeal allowed: convictions set aside and a new trial ordered because the trial judge misdirected the jury on the law of consent by conflating medical "informed consent" with legal consent and failing to distinguish therapeutic from non-therapeutic sexual acts (thereby undermining the defence), and because the trial judge erred in admitting L.B.'s prior disciplinary hearing testimony as similar-fact hearsay without establishing the necessary necessity and reliability.
Source excerpt
The Court held the Hearing Committee did not err in law in finding the appellant guilty on specified particulars, in admitting similar fact and rebuttal evidence, and in reopening the College’s case because the Committee properly applied the civil standard (requiring cogent/clear evidence given seriousness), performed the requisite probative/prejudice balancing for similar fact evidence, and preserved fairness; however the Committee unlawfully delegated its power by permitting the Registrar to extend the fixed six-month suspension, so that delegation clause was struck and sentence varied; cos…
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court of Canada restored an accounting judgment for a physician who had funded the purchase of a practice and later profit-sharing agreements.
Explore more
