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 Shari Campbell’s judicial review of VAC’s refusal to reimburse inpatient treatment and travel costs, finding the decision reasonable.
The Federal Court correctly applied the Sierra Club/Sherman confidentiality test and proportionality principles, and there was no palpable and overriding error in limiting redactions rather than sealing the entire motion record; the Privacy Act s.8(1) issue was not required to decide the Rule 151 motion; appeal dismissed with costs of $500 CAD.
Source excerpt
Federal Court approved a class action settlement about SISIP disability benefits, amended the class definition, and approved the representative plaintiff honorarium, fees, and disbursements.
The court considered VAC disability benefits, pension income, and double recovery in a support review, awarding reduced spousal and retroactive child support.
The Board reasonably found that the principal cause of delay was the applicant's failure to present adequate medical evidence and that representation by the BPA did not, without more, constitute an administrative difficulty beyond the applicant's control under s.39(2); the Board's exercise of discretion was within the range of acceptable outcomes and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a Commission referral to the Tribunal, holding there was a reasonable basis to let the ex gratia payments issue proceed.
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review, finding the VRAB reasonably relied on records showing Mr. Hawryluk began service in August 1947, too late for benefits.
Le Tribunal fédéral rejette le contrôle judiciaire d’un refus de réexamen du VRAB, concluant que la nouvelle preuve n’établissait pas l’équivalence demandée.
The Federal Court held that the Veterans Review and Appeal Board unreasonably rejected uncontradicted medical evidence on cervical osteoarthritis and remitted the matter for reconsideration.
The Federal Court limited further filings, granted the Crown more time to respond, and ordered outstanding motions in the Hardy matter to be decided in writing.
Explore more
