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 allowed Mr. Johnson’s judicial review, holding that he was not given the text of the written rule he was said to have disobeyed and remitting the matter.
The Tribunal granted the parties' consent request and issued a revised scheduling order setting specific deadlines for motions, productions, examinations for discovery, expert reports, mediation, requests for admissions, motions for summary disposition and a 15-day hearing commencing May 30, 2016; parties may request parts of the hearing be held in Toronto by December 14, 2015.
Source excerpt
Federal Court upheld Roche’s application, finding MMF’s utility was demonstrated or soundly predicted and that it was not obvious, and barred an NOC until patent expiry.
The 778 patent was not eligible for listing against any of the SNDSs/NOCs relied upon by Wyeth; motions under paragraph 6(5)(a) require the court to determine listing eligibility on the evidence before it (de novo) and on that basis the prohibition application must be dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal was satisfied on the evidence that the circumstances that led to the 1992 Order have changed and that, in the circumstances existing at the time of the application, the 1992 Order would not have been made; the Commissioner consented and proper notice was given, therefore the 1992 Order is rescinded.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal granted the agreed amendment because the parties consented and the Tribunal has statutory authority under s.106(1) of the Competition Act to amend a registered consent; the specific modification extending the trustee's period to effect the divestiture was reasonable and within the Tribunal's powers.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed Mr. Hiebert’s judicial review, holding that a designated correctional staff member’s limited role in the disciplinary hearing did not breach fairness or create bias.
Explore more
