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 British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed a family property division appeal, holding the claim was filed too late under the Family Law Act limitation period.
The appeal was dismissed because the Court of Appeal found no reversible error: the trial judge reasonably excluded or discounted an unreliable translated transcript, her factual findings that the transfers were payments for homestay and not proven loans or investments meant unjust enrichment was not established, and the claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act (with any Hyundai loan claim affected by bankruptcy), so there was no basis to disturb the trial decision absent palpable and overriding error.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the motion judge correctly found the matter of adding the non‑LSO defendants as necessary parties had been finally determined and that the proposed negligence claim was statute‑barred and abusive: the judge properly applied the discoverability analysis and exercised discretion to refuse leave to amend.
Source excerpt
The court held the claimant’s spousal support and property claims were time-barred under the Family Law Act and granted the respondent’s application with costs.
The Federal Court rejected Canada’s limitations defence and found a duty of care only for children placed or adopted through Saskatchewan’s AIM program, not the broader class.
The Application was struck because it constituted a vexatious collateral attack on Norton J.'s prior decision and therefore an abuse of process; alternatively the Notice of Application disclosed no reasonable cause of action (fraud on the court not established and professional misconduct allegations did not create a private cause of action); alternatively the claim was statute-barred by the Limitation of Actions Act. Summary judgment on the pleadings was granted for these reasons.
Source excerpt
The court enforced Loans #1 and #2 for $214,000, rejected Loan #3 as unenforceable, and found the 2016 share transfer was a fraudulent conveyance.
The court dismissed a plaintiff’s application to amend pleadings for informed consent and vicarious liability claims, but allowed him to renew with a better draft.
The court held the Civil Forfeiture Act’s 30-day period runs from the Director’s receipt of a notice of dispute, so the claim was filed in time.
The majority allowed the appeal: the motion judge erred by excluding from deductible ‘reasonable costs’ the full rent Torstar paid for the entire third floor when that rent was an expense incurred in connection with the sublease analysis and by applying the RPLA. The Boreal Sublease must be construed in context; profit is ordinary excess of revenue over expenses and, on proper interpretation and factual matrix, Torstar was entitled to account for its full rental costs in assessing whether a profit existed. Moreover, the claim is governed by the Limitations Act, 2002 (general limitations regim…
Source excerpt
Explore more
