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 judicial review of a CRA decision denying CRBA benefits, finding the officer reasonably concluded the applicant failed to prove eligible income and a COVID-19-related income reduction.
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld dismissal of Sheridan Retail’s action under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP law, but reduced the motion costs award from $156,394.54 to $75,000.
The Federal Court dismissed the MPCC’s judicial review applications, holding OPS conduct-complaint investigations are not policing duties or functions and disclosure was not compelled for the public interest investigation.
The Court found two aspects of the adjudicator's decision unreasonable: (1) it was unreasonable to conclude the City did not need case study addresses to scrutinize Coriolis' financial modelling given the adjudicator accepted Coriolis would cease providing addresses; and (2) it was unreasonable to conclude the pro formas and addresses were not information "about" the owners of the case study properties under s.21(1). The Court set aside the adjudicator's decision in part and remitted the matter to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to reconsider and complete the analyses u…
Source excerpt
Sections 207.05 and 207.06 impose a tax (not a penalty) as shown by the statutory text, context and purpose; s.207.06 does not delegate unrestricted rate‑setting power to the Minister and therefore does not breach s.53 of the Constitution Act, 1867; the Minister's waiver power is constrained by statutory factors and judicial review.
Source excerpt
The appeal is allowed because the Athletic Commissioner Act and its regulations do not, expressly or by implication, create a private law duty of care to individual athletes, and SFU's amended third party notice fails to plead the material facts necessary to establish proximity (the key basis for a novel duty). Bare allegations that the regulator knew or ought to have known of contraventions are insufficient; therefore the third party notice is plain and obvious to fail and must be struck (without prejudice to SFU applying to refile if material facts are available).
Source excerpt
Leave to appeal was denied because, although questions of law were raised, they lack importance beyond this case and lack a reasonable prospect of success: the Bylaw regulates non-incidental commercial vehicle parking rather than the conduct of farm businesses and therefore does not fall within ss.481(2) or 552 LGA requiring ministerial approval, and it is not inconsistent with the ALCA in a way that would alter the appellants' convictions.
Source excerpt
s.161(3)'s power to 'vary the conditions prescribed in the order' includes authority to vary the duration of a s.161 prohibition order where changed circumstances make such variation desirable; on the facts the Provincial Court judge did not err in principle or produce a demonstrably unfit result in refusing to reduce the 20‑year term and in granting only limited condition variations, and the proposed fresh evidence was not material on appeal and must be raised in a fresh variation application in Provincial Court.
Source excerpt
Accepted the expert appraisal value of $64,000 (and the 2021 expropriation appraisal of $62,500/advance payment $62,511.51), rejected plaintiff's unsupported $180,000 valuation and claim for replacement; awarded disturbance damages limited by s.34: six months rent at $342/month ($2,052) and proven moving expenses of $392.05, plus interest from date of expropriation; rejected claim for owner's time and litigation costs; plaintiff not awarded costs.
Source excerpt
Given the unresolved and potentially determinative legal issues about the scope of both the common law academic immunity and statutory immunity in s.69(2) of the University Act, and because a related divisional appeal (Easley) may clarify those issues, it was contrary to the interests of justice to require the indigent appellant to post security that could prevent pursuit of an appeal; the chambers judge's security order was therefore set aside.
Source excerpt
Explore more
