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 dismissed Mr. Goodman's judicial review of a 90-day IRP, finding the adjudicator reasonably rejected his burping, speech, and balance explanations.
The court dismissed a stay application by Depak Fagurha over a 90-day driving prohibition, finding the alleged harm was too speculative and public safety prevailed.
Judicial review of a licence cancellation was dismissed. The court held only the reconsideration decision was reviewable and that an offered second ERA was an adequate alternative remedy.
The court dismissed a judicial review of a driving prohibition, holding the adjudicator’s driver-identification findings were reasonable and fresh evidence was inadmissible.
Judicial review of a 90-day immediate roadside prohibition was partly allowed: the mouthwash issue was remitted for rehearing, while other findings were upheld.
The parties formed an enforceable contract by the seller's Kijiji listing and the buyer's text acceptance for $1,000 to purchase the Airstream 'in rough condition' as goods; property passed on acceptance under the Sale of Goods Act; there was no contractual term that the trailer was a motor vehicle or that the seller would provide registration papers or assist with vehicle transfer, so the Motor Vehicle Act provisions relied on by the Claimant do not impose obligations on the Defendant in these facts; claim dismissed.
Source excerpt
The court acquitted Roy Donald McCormack of criminal negligence causing bodily harm and dangerous driving after a tractor-trailer collision, finding reasonable doubt on brake-check compliance and marked departure.
Petition for judicial review of an immediate roadside prohibition was dismissed for unreasonable delay after more than five years without prosecution.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed judicial review of a 90-day IRP, holding the bodily-sample demand was valid and s. 10(b) did not provide a reasonable excuse.
License plates are government identification space with a primary non‑expressive function; personalized plates do not attract s.2(b) protection in that location and, in any event, s.5(c)(iv) and s.8 are prescribed by law and, if s.2(b) applied, the restriction is justified under s.1; the s.15 claim fails because no distinction was drawn on an enumerated ground and no discriminatory disadvantage was shown.
Source excerpt
Explore more
