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 granted judicial review of a CRA CRB redetermination, finding procedural unfairness after the officer ignored the applicant’s disclosed mental health conditions and need for accommodation.
The Board's refusal to extend time was reasonable: the applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances or incapacity that prevented filing within 90 days; his pursuit of a human rights complaint and Federal Court review demonstrated he was not wholly incapacitated for legal proceedings; allegations of intimidation lacked particulars; the Accessible Canada Act did not create an individual right relevant to extending the statutory limitation period.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court found the CRA’s refusal of CERB, CRB and CWLB benefits procedurally unfair because it failed to properly address disability-related accommodation requests and representations.
The Federal Court held that the grievance decision was unreasonable because it failed to give intelligible reasons on the 13 allegations and remitted the matter.
Federal Court dismissed Robert Mulder’s judicial review of a CHRC screening decision, finding the investigation reasonable, procedurally fair, and not biased.
The Tribunal dismissed the complaint because CIBC provided a reasonable, non-pretextual explanation for termination based on longstanding performance issues and serious misconduct that persisted despite implemented accommodations; medical evidence did not establish that the complained-of conduct was caused by the disability and the accommodation process did not render the termination discriminatory.
Source excerpt
Judicial review dismissed: the Federal Court upheld the Commission’s decision that no inquiry was warranted after the inmate refused a proposed accommodation.
Nova Scotia (Environment) v. Wakeham,
The appeal is allowed because the Board’s findings that the Department’s failure to implement accommodations caused Ms. Wakeham’s permanent inability to work were unreasonable and contradicted the evidentiary record: independent medical assessments established longstanding, likely permanent cognitive and physical impairments pre‑dating February 2012 that rendered her unable to work even with accommodation; only one suggested accommodation (quieter workspace) was not implemented and there was no evidence it caused the departure; the Board improperly shifted the obligation to elucidate function…
Source excerpt
On judicial review of a labour arbitration award, the court held the arbitrator’s decision was reasonable and dismissed Telus’s application.
The Commission did not breach procedural fairness by failing to provide written reasons in these circumstances and, on the record, its decision to dismiss the complaint as without merit under s.29(4)(b) was a reasonable screening outcome; HRM’s accommodation efforts were sufficient and the judicial review application is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
