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 Supreme Court held that New Brunswick’s Lieutenant Governor must be able to understand, communicate in, and perform the office in both official languages.
The unanswered cross-examination questions were irrelevant to the application because the matter before the court concerned the language requirements for the affiant's position; the Federal Court applied the correct test for the scope of cross-examination under Rule 97(b) in an OLA application and made no reviewable error in its costs award, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed an OLA application challenging CRA bilingual staffing designations at the EQTSO, finding the language requirements were objectively justified.
The Federal Court dismissed a motion to compel written cross-examination answers, holding the disputed questions were outside the affidavit’s proper scope.
The Federal Court dismissed a motion in an Official Languages Act application, holding Rule 317 did not apply and that no appeal lay from the associate judge’s direction.
La Cour fédérale rejette le contrôle judiciaire d’un grief militaire et juge raisonnable la décision d’écarter la formation du demandeur en génie aérospatial.
The Federal Court found ERAA breached the Official Languages Act and awarded Michel Thibodeau $5,000 in damages plus $3,900 in costs.
Canada (Commissioner of Official Languages) v. Canada (Employment and Social Development)
The request to constitute a panel to hear the respondents' emergency stay motion was denied because the respondents waited nearly two months after receiving the judgment to seek emergency relief without adequate explanation, undermining any claim of urgency and constituting at least an abuse of process; the appropriate route is to apply to this Court for a stay of the time limit if seeking Supreme Court leave.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court granted a 14-day extension to file the applicants’ record, but dismissed their request for an order requiring an English translation of the RAD decision.
The General Division did not err: the claimant failed to demonstrate good cause under s.10(4) because reliance on the general information on the Service Canada website was insufficient; a reasonable person would have contacted Service Canada to clarify when to file; intention to seek employment is not good cause; no Charter challenge was properly raised before the General Division and the record is inadequate to decide it.
Source excerpt
Explore more
