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 Federal Court dismissed Mohit Gupta’s Rule 397 motion for reconsideration, holding the request improperly sought to reargue a prior judicial review decision.
On the facts the trial judge did not err: some after-the-fact conduct had probative value regarding whether the appellant acted in self-defence and the judge properly limited the use of that evidence for intent while cautioning the jury on inferences for self-defence; further, the charge adequately addressed the concurrence requirement by directing the jury to consider which shot caused the death and that intent must coincide with the fatal shot, so the jury was properly equipped and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal from an order refusing to set aside a default judgment in a mortgage enforcement case.
The Cellebrite extractions were admissible and, when tested against extensive extrinsic corroborative evidence (device activity gaps and unlock timestamps, GPS coordinates resolving to the accused's residence, Facebook and banking data, seizure circumstances, photos matching residence), the court accepted the reports without expert opinion; on that basis identity, jurisdiction and temporal elements were proven and the Crown established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed, accessed, transmitted/made available CSAEM and engaged in grooming/luring conduct, warranting convictions…
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed Intercity’s appeal, holding that the TRREB arbitration finally determined the commission dispute and barred relitigation against Salerno.
Although defence counsel's mitigation submission lacked evidentiary foundation and was improper, the prejudice was remediable by corrective jury instructions (including a directive to ignore the mitigation submission and a warning against speculation); the defendant retains the burden to prove failure to mitigate and extent of loss reduction, and absent evidence of specific alternate employment the jury should not speculate, so dismissal of the mistrial application was justified.
Source excerpt
Appeal allowed in a sexual assault conviction. The court held the trial became unfair after a Crown breach of a s. 276 ruling was not adequately remedied.
Claimant failed to establish that the respondent's move significantly impacted his ability to spend time with J.C.; therefore the exchange location will not be varied. Claimant breached a conduct order by copying the child on litigation emails, warranting a nominal fine, and claimant must pay fixed costs to respondent.
Source excerpt
Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate enforcement/variation of the 2017 Separation Agreement; Father engaged in blameworthy non-disclosure and was capable of higher earnings, so income of $130,000 was imputed for 2018, 2024 and 2025 (with reported incomes used for 2019–2023); retroactive child support was awarded on that basis; retroactive s.7 expenses of $22,781.98 awarded; issue of support after the Child reached majority adjourned for further evidence.
Source excerpt
Kienapple did not apply because the two offences contain distinct legal elements (bodily harm versus choking) such that multiple convictions were permissible; the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption requiring SOIRA registration under s.490.012(3) given the violent nature, victim harm, relationship context and assessed risk of reoffence; balancing sentencing principles yielded a fit sentence of five years' imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently with ancillary orders (20-year SOIRA, DNA, 10-year weapons prohibition, non-communication while in custody).
Source excerpt
Explore more
