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
Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from dismissal for delay in a civil action, holding the inordinate delay was intentional and prejudicial.
The court set aside a 2014 desk-order divorce after finding the spouses were not separated as alleged, the order was obtained on false information, and justice required reopening it.
The jury notice was struck because, applying Rule 52.02(5)(b) and the factors in Cyr, justice required a judge-alone trial: the case requires multiple expert medical and technical opinions and complex evidentiary rulings, the self-represented plaintiff has demonstrated inability to conduct an effective jury trial and will require extensive court assistance that could prejudice the defendants, so a judge-alone trial best serves the interests of justice.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed a plaintiff’s claim after repeated, unexplained non-compliance with rules and orders, including failure to attend an IME, trial management conference, and jury trial.
The pleadings and the appellant's filings manifestly showed frivolous, vexatious and abusive litigation with no intelligible cause of action or grounds of appeal; accordingly r.2.1 applied, the panel review motions and the Google appeal were dismissed, and the appellant's fee waivers were revoked under s.4.10 of the Act.
Source excerpt
Application to vary dismissed. The Court of Appeal held the chambers judge made no error in dismissing the appeal as abandoned and refusing an extension of time.
The court struck and dismissed John Richard Keida’s notice of civil claim against Canco Cranes without leave to amend for failing to plead a reasonable cause of action.
The Supreme Court upheld the dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence in R. v. Boutilier, finding ss. 753(1) and 753(4.1) constitutional.
The court struck a consumer-protection claim over school survey results, finding it did not properly plead a deceptive act or practice and was vexatious.
The Court deferred to the motion judge's discretionary finding that the appellant's mental health did not meet the exceptional threshold required for the forum of necessity doctrine and that reasonable accommodations (including discovery in Ontario and remote testimony) could address access concerns; accordingly Ontario should not assume jurisdiction and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
