R. v. Kadunic
2026 BCSC 720
Source excerpt
- Section 8 charter
- Transmission data recorder warrants
- Tracking warrants
- Reasonable grounds to suspect/believe
- Sub-facial challenge (ito excision)
- Excision and amplification
Canada Source-linked decisions Coverage checked
Canada Case Law
Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
- Courts on this page
- 5 court collections
- Last checked
Search and filter Canada case law
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
X-Spectrum 2 Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General)
Federal Court allowed judicial review of ISEDâs refusal to approve a low-band spectrum licence transfer, finding reliance on an undisclosed 20% guide made the decision unfair and unreasonable.
- Procedural fairness
- Reasonableness review
- Spectrum licence transfer
- Market concentration
- Bias and disclosure
- Remittal
Cogeco Communications Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General)
The Federal Court added TELUS as a respondent, refused Saskatchewan Telecommunicationsâ motion, and struck a judicial review as barred by adequate alternative remedies.
- Standing and joinder (rule 303)
- Adequate alternative remedy
- Mootness
- Judicial discretion
- Review and vary (crtc)
- Adequate-alternative-remedy
Rogers Communications Canada Inc. v. Québecor Média Inc.
The Court dismissed the appeal: the CRTC did not breach procedural fairness in making adjustments, refusing expanded disclosure, or refusing production given its discretion, the applicable confidentiality/disclosure regime and concerns about delay; and there was no legal error in the CRTC's application of the requirement that rates be just and reasonable, particularly given the governing long-term fair return principle; factual findings are not reviewable on this appeal.
Source excerpt
- Final offer arbitration
- Rate-setting
- Just and reasonable rates
- Confidentiality and disclosure
- Statutory interpretation (telecommunications act)
Telus Communications Inc. v. Federation of Canadian Municipalities
The Supreme Court held that âtransmission lineâ in the Telecommunications Act means wireline infrastructure only, excluding 5G small cell antennas from the access regime.
- Access to transmission lines
- 5g small cell deployment
- Crtc jurisdiction
- Interplay with radiocommunication act
- Technological neutrality
- Federalism
Zawilski v. Cogeco Connexion Inc.
The Tribunal granted the confidentiality order under s.52(1)(c) CHRA applying the Sherman (Estate) threeâpart test: it found the documents were contractually protected and treated as confidential, disclosure would pose a real and substantial risk to important public interests (protection of confidential contractual information and competitive market integrity), no reasonable alternatives would prevent that risk, and the benefits of sealing outweigh the harm to open court values. Therefore the specified documents are sealed and subject to confidentiality conditions.
Source excerpt
- Confidentiality order
- Open court principle
- Section 52 chra
- Duty to accommodate
- Described video accessibility
- Nonâdisclosure agreements
Zawilski v. Cogeco Connexion Inc.
The Tribunal granted CCD interested person status because CCD met the three-part test: its expertise will assist the Tribunal, it adds a national perspective not otherwise available to the parties, and the proceedings may affect its constituents; participation was granted subject to conditions limiting scope to written and oral submissions, prohibiting presentation of evidence or examination/cross-examination of witnesses, and restricting disclosure to statements of particulars and anticipated evidence provided by the parties by the specified deadline.
Source excerpt
- Duty to accommodate
- Accessibility
- Interested person status
- Described video
- Remedies
Teksavvy Solutions Inc. v. Bell Canada
The appeal is dismissed because the matters complained of are discretionary, policy-laden rate-setting decisions outside the Court's remit under s.64(1); the CRTC lawfully adopted and relied on an articulable costing methodology and prior record, Teksavvy had no enforceable legitimate expectation to force repetition of the exhaustive costing process, alleged bias was not established and objections were waived by failure to raise them promptly.
Source excerpt
- Rate-setting
- Legitimate expectations
- Bias and reasonable apprehension of bias
- Procedural fairness
- Statutory scope of appeal (s.64(1))
- Crtc variation power (s.62)
Rogers Communications Canada Inc. c. Québécor Média Inc.
Given the prior December 15, 2023 disclosure order in favour of Rogers, fairness requires granting Québécor access to the same category of confidential information (affirmations, analysis and, if applicable, business plan supporting Rogers' final offer) on an 'external counsel and experts only' basis; the confidentiality order is modified to add a third tier but access by an internal designated representative is denied; QMI must file its response within 20 days of transmission with extensions only by court order on a demonstrated diligence standard.
Source excerpt
- Disclosure under court rules
- Confidentiality orders and tiers
- Access to thirdâparty tribunal records
- Timetable for filings
- Use of experts
Clark v. Canada (Attorney General)
The Federal Court dismissed Julian Clarkâs judicial review of ISEDâs refusal to begin dispute resolution over a Salt Spring Island tower, finding no standing and no unfairness.
- Standing
- Procedural fairness
- Antenna siting policy
- Dispute resolution
- Costs
- Judicial-review
Explore more