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
In this motor vehicle negligence trial, the court found the plaintiff entered on a red light, accepted independent eyewitness evidence, and dismissed the claim.
The Court found HRM owed a duty of procedural fairness but the level of procedural protection required was low given the legislative and policy context; available evidence supported that postcards and public engagement occurred and any nonreceipt by applicants was not proven and would constitute an internal procedural failure rather than illegality; the alleged impacts were speculative and insufficient to convert the procedural lapse into illegality under s.207. Therefore the Resolution was not quashed and the application was dismissed.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed a motor vehicle negligence claim after finding the defendant left-turning driver had the right-of-way and the plaintiff failed to yield at a red light.
The Crown appeal succeeded: a driver stopped at a red light in park was still “driving or operating” and her phone use fell within the Motor Vehicle Act prohibition.
Leave to appeal was denied because the appellant's submissions did not raise a question of law but merely challenged the trial judge's factual and credibility findings, and the proposed grounds therefore had no reasonable possibility of success nor significance to the administration of justice; procedural non‑compliance alone did not require striking the appeal.
Source excerpt
Summary trial over a motor vehicle collision found the plaintiff changed lanes late and accelerated through a late amber/near-red light, making him 100% at fault.
On liability for a motor vehicle collision, the court found the plaintiff unlawfully drove through a cross-hatched median and was 100% liable.
The Supreme Court held that Alberta’s licence-suspension scheme was inoperative to the extent it enforced a bankruptcy-discharged debt, due to federal paramountcy.
Reading the Manual as a whole, the phrase refers to selecting the direction of traffic to monitor in stationary mode rather than limiting monitoring to a physically adjacent lane; therefore the BEE III can monitor a middle lane from a stationary roadside position, the appeal judge's interpretation was correct, the Crown's proffered fresh evidence was unnecessary and the appellant's challenge to the device's reliability fails on the interpretation issue; appeal dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal upheld liability against Abbotsford and Jake’s Contracting for inadequate construction-zone warnings, and maintained the 80/20 fault split.
Explore more
