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
PacNet sought leave to appeal a disclosure decision and sending order under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act; the Court dismissed the application because the alleged errors were not questions of law.
The court dealt with competing claims to foreclosure proceeds, held that Chan’s security claim was statute-barred, dismissed Tang/Shen’s application, and adjourned Ngan’s priority request.
The Federal Court awarded Inga Zane limited reimbursement of yacht-related expenses, but dismissed her wage claim and her claim to an ownership interest in Kindness.
The application for bail pending appeal is dismissed because the enforceability interest, driven by the seriousness of the gun offence, outweighs the weak reviewability interest given the arguable but unsupported and fact-driven grounds of appeal (transcript and supporting materials not filed), such that detention is necessary in the public interest under s.679(3)(c).
Source excerpt
Where the jury had access to a comprehensive, correct written charge and counsel supported the judge repeating that charge, the judge did not err in responding to a request for an "expanded" definition of reasonable doubt by directing the jury to the written instructions; likewise, a general instruction that motive is one factor in assessing credibility was sufficient in the absence of a specific request for a more detailed direction on motive to fabricate.
Source excerpt
The trial judge erred as a matter of law in using the amended s.633 stand-aside authority to remove two otherwise fit male jurors to achieve gender balance; that intervention, conducted in the presence of sworn jurors and the panel and outside statutory-sanctioned methods, prejudiced the appellant’s s.11(d) right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial jury and therefore the curative proviso s.686(1)(b)(iv) cannot be applied; the conviction is set aside and a new trial ordered.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed Chol’s appeal, holding that abuse of process by relitigation did not bar the Crown from prosecuting a co-conspirator separately on similar evidence.
The trial judge did not err in refusing a lengthy adjournment because the discharge of counsel occurred after the key incriminating testimony and there was no realistic prospect of new counsel; appointment of amicus curiae, active judicial interventions, mid-trial and final instructions adequately protected trial fairness and neutralized any prejudice from Crown conduct, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The trial judge's factual findings that the appellant stiffened and attempted to pull away provided objective grounds to arrest for wilful obstruction; the pat‑down was reasonably necessary for officer safety and the consideration of silence was contextual, not the sole basis for the arrest. Therefore the arrest and search incident to arrest were lawful and the convictions were properly entered.
Source excerpt
The application judge was required to consider proportionality under s.19.1(3); because the judge declined to do so and the factors for proportionality are numerous per R. v. Craig, the Court of Appeal would not conduct its own analysis on the existing record and therefore allowed the appeal and ordered a new forfeiture hearing.
Source excerpt
Explore more
