Canada Case Law

Portnov v. Alexander Holburn Beaudin + Lang LLP

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The applicant failed to demonstrate that Justice Edelmann committed an error of law, principle, or misconceived the facts in applying the Davies factors; given the conceded tardiness of the applicant's intention to appeal, lack of notice to respondents, neutral prejudice, and that the underlying claim had been struck as meritless, it was not in the interests of justice to extend the time to appeal, so the variation application must be dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Extension of time to appeal
• Default judgment
• Service of process
• Strike under pleading rules

Read case analysis

Boulachanis v. Canada

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Federal Court correctly identified and applied the three‑prong Rule 167 test, reasonably concluded that alternatives to dismissal had been exhausted, and did not commit a palpable and overriding error in its findings of fact and mixed fact and law; the April 16, 2024 case management direction did not relieve the appellant of outstanding undertakings or preclude the respondent from bringing a Rule 167 motion, therefore the appeal is dismissed and the dismissal for undue delay is confirmed.

Source excerpt

• Undue delay
• Case management
• Sanctions
• Rule 167 federal courts rules
• Dismissal for delay
• Standard of review

Read case analysis

Truly Social Games, LLC v. East Side Games Group Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed a late application to adjourn a 25-day trial, finding the request untimely and prejudicial. Costs of the application were awarded to the plaintiffs.

• Adjournment
• Trial management
• Document production
• Discovery
• Costs
• Forum non conveniens

Read case analysis

Johnson v. Canadian Tennis Association

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed all three appeals. It held that neither the Associate Judge nor the Federal Court committed an error of law or a palpable and overriding error of fact or mixed fact and law in refusing the follow-up discovery, striking the majority of written questions, or ordering security for costs. The Federal Court properly applied the applicable Rules (97(b), 99(2), 242, 416(1), 417, 400) and jurisprudential standards on discretion, costs and bias; appellant failed to demonstrate bias or to show that costs/security orders were an error in principle or plainly wrong.

Source excerpt

• Examinations for discovery
• Follow-up questions under rule 97(b)
• Striking discovery questions (rule 99(2))
• Refusals charts
• Security for costs (rule 416(1)(f))
• Impecuniosity and rule 417

Read case analysis

Anani v. Sharawy

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The panel dismissed the request because the appellant failed to identify any error of principle, failure to apply the applicable legal principles, or an unreasonable result by the motion judge; the motion judge reasonably enforced procedural rules requiring an issued and entered order and properly denied the dispense motion.

Source excerpt

• Panel review
• Issued and entered order
• Failure to follow court rules
• Standard of review for motions

Read case analysis

Hamilton v. Vaughan

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The motion to amend the endorsement was dismissed because the record contained no basis to find the motion judge misapprehended the evidence about the unfiled order, no evidence supported the allegation of a falsified affidavit of service, and there was no basis to extend the perfection date to accommodate the motions below; panel intervention is inappropriate absent error in principle or an unreasonable result.

Source excerpt

• Extension of time to perfect appeal
• Stay of motions
• Courts of justice act s.137.1
• Courts of justice act s.137.4
• Service and entry of orders
• Change of representation

Read case analysis

Lu v. Chiang

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed two motor vehicle accident actions for want of prosecution after finding inordinate and inexcusable delay and concluding dismissal was in the interests of justice.

• Dismissal for want of prosecution
• Delay
• Prejudice
• Failure to prosecute
• Disclosure
• Examination for discovery

Read case analysis

S.T.W. v. L.S.D.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Court granted joint guardianship, mother primary residence, increased father parenting time, retroactive and ongoing child support, and communication conduct orders.

• Guardianship
• Parenting arrangements
• Primary residence
• Parenting time
• Imputation of income
• Retroactive child support

Read case analysis

Salloum v. Smith

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held that the leave application, filed in time, could stand as a notice of appeal nunc pro tunc, so no extension of time was needed.

• Extension of time
• Leave to appeal
• Notice of appeal
• Court practice directive
• Costs
• Notice-of-appeal

Read case analysis

Surewerx USA Inc. v. Dentec Safety Specialists Inc.

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court awarded Surewerx and Jet Equipment costs of $3,680 after dismissing Dentec’s appeal, finding a modest upward adjustment from default tariff appropriate.

• Model protective order interpretation
• Solicitor's eyes only designation
• Costs awards
• Settlement offers and costs consequences
• Costs-law
• Protective-orders

Read case analysis