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 Mr. Moulton’s judicial review of a VRAB appeal decision on hypertension entitlement, finding the four-fifths award reasonable and no procedural unfairness.
The Federal Court struck most of a veteran’s claim about cancelled rehabilitation benefits, but allowed negligence to proceed and amended the style of cause.
The Appeal Panel’s reconsideration decision was unreasonable because it failed to address material evidence—specifically Dr. Stuart’s report—on the central issue of causation; under Vavilov and s.39 of the VRAB Act the Panel was required to engage with that evidence, and the proper remedy is remittal to a differently constituted Appeal Panel for a fresh hearing.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed Mr. Feeney’s judicial review as out of time, finding he had knowledge of the Veterans Affairs decision well before December 2020.
Federal Court certified this veterans benefits class action only on negligent misrepresentation, struck systemic negligence, fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment, and allowed amendment of the pleadings.
The Federal Court struck a judicial review application challenging a VAC letter, holding the letter was explanatory only and the real decision was rehabilitation plan cancellation.
Federal Court granted judicial review in a veterans benefits case, set aside a VRAB reconsideration decision, and ordered redetermination by a differently constituted panel.
The factual basis of the appellant's pleaded wrongs (events of 2009 and the ensuing military investigation) is the same factual basis for which he receives disability awards under the Veterans Well-being Act; therefore s.9 of the CLPA bars the action (including alleged Charter remedies) and the Federal Court did not err in principle; moreover the motion record decisions could be considered on r.221 given they were referenced and not challenged; however the Federal Court erred in allowing any part of the claim to continue and the claim should have been struck in its entirety.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because only a judgment, not the reasons for a judgment, may be appealed to this Court; the Federal Court’s order remitting the matter to the VRAB stands and the Federal Court of Appeal will not revisit the merits or the Federal Court’s expressed reasons, leaving the issues for reconsideration by the VRAB.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court of Appeal held that reasonableness is the correct standard of review for the CDS’s interpretation of CFAO 24-6 and DAOD 5044-1; the CDS reasonably concluded that a family care plan is not a regulated military duty and that Captain Fawcett’s injuries were not attributable to military service; the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
