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 Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from an order striking pleadings for non-payment of a costs award, and awarded the respondents $25,000 costs.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed panel review motions, upheld security for costs, and allowed 30 days to pay the security or the appeal will be dismissed.
The court dismissed applications to strike a family trust claim, holding earlier insurance trust proceedings and a prior accounting order did not bar the action.
Because the earlier dismissal occurred without a hearing on the merits, res judicata does not apply; the reduction and amendment of the claim are not shown to have caused prejudice amounting to unfairness to defendants, and therefore the claimants are entitled to a hearing on the newly filed claim.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed a request to reconsider and set aside a summary judgment, finding no admissible evidence of an arguable defence despite sympathy for the plaintiff’s difficult circumstances.
The appeal was allowed because the certification judge erred as a matter of law by reinstating the Family Class without conducting a fresh 'some basis in fact' analysis required after this Court's Greenwood FCA decision; Rule 334.19 does not permit reinstatement that ignores the appellate guidance, and the order was set aside and remitted for reconsideration consistent with Greenwood FCA.
Source excerpt
The motion for an extension of time was dismissed because the applicant did not form a bona fide intention to appeal within the relevant period and provided an unacceptable explanation for the delay (electing to pursue a Second Action instead), the proposed appeal lacked merit as it primarily challenged discretionary factual findings made on uncontradicted evidence, and granting an extension would prejudice respondents and harm the administration of justice by likely causing a mistrial of ongoing related proceedings.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed an application to set aside a consent order, holding the settlement was binding, there was no duress or breach, and the matter was res judicata.
The Appeal Division dismissed the appeal because the Danyluk preconditions for res judicata were satisfied (identical question of CPP disability eligibility, final Review Tribunal decision, same parties) and, after considering the discretionary factors articulated in Danyluk, the Tribunal concluded applying res judicata would not produce manifest injustice; the Claimant's unrepresented status and allegations of substantive error did not render the prior proceeding procedurally unfair so as to bar application of the rule.
Source excerpt
Application for a stay of proceedings pending appeal dismissed because the proposed appeal had little merit, no irreparable harm was shown, and convenience favoured proceeding.
Explore more
