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 Court of Appeal fixed WWLG’s costs at $74,171 all inclusive, awarding appeal and judicial review costs but denying costs for the Superior Court application.
The Court of Appeal held that the OEB’s letters were a final, binding decision interpreting the Distribution System Code and were subject to judicial review.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed a judicial review of a BCER permit decision for Section 5B of the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission project, finding the petitioners lacked public interest standing.
The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the OEB committed an extricable error of law by applying the rule against perpetuities to a provision limiting duration rather than to vesting contingencies; the Divisional Court correctly concluded the 1957 Agreement vested on execution and remains in effect, and the OEB lacked authority under s.10 to impose the Model Franchise Agreement because the franchise had not expired or was not imminent to expire.
Source excerpt
Leave to appeal was granted because the issues raise questions of public importance and legal significance that affect the development of Ontario jurisprudence—specifically whether certain OEB decisions or staff opinions are insulated from judicial review—and therefore warrant determination by the Court of Appeal rather than being treated as final under a rigid application of Re Sault Dock.
Source excerpt
The plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction to stop or relocate nearby gas activities. The court dismissed the application, finding no strong prima facie case or irreparable harm.
The appeals are dismissed: the Governor in Council’s decision to issue Order in Council 2019-0784 was reasonable in light of the NEB’s extensive process, findings and conditions, plus Crown supplemental consultations and accommodations; the Crown fulfilled its duty to consult with the appellants on the evidence before the Court.
Source excerpt
The Local Distributors made a single supply of electricity; delivery, transmission and regulatory charges are integrant inputs to that single supply and cannot be realistically separated. Invoice itemization was regulatory mandated and not evidence of distinct supplies. Therefore Bell Canada must recapture the portion of input tax credits attributable to the 8% provincial tax under subsection 236.01(2) on the single supply of electricity; appeal dismissed.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed. The Court held that Condition 3, read with amended Condition 15 and the CCAR and Federal Order in Council, requires enforceable commitments to have been made or agreed to by Manitoba Hydro on the NEB/CEC record; the MAP documents were on the record but Manitoba Hydro did not agree to them and lacked authority to enter into the MAP, so they are not commitments within Condition 3; the Commission considered the honour of the Crown and s.56(1) and did not breach procedural fairness or the requirement to hold a public hearing under the circumstances.
Source excerpt
Leave to appeal was refused because, although the issue raised a question of law, the Consumer Advocate did not establish a reasonably arguable case that the Board’s refusal to hold an oral hearing breached procedural fairness: the Board gave comprehensive reasons, the written process with RFIs and expert engagement was adequate, and deference is owed to the Board’s choice of procedure; the Board may participate in the leave application by making submissions on the merits.
Source excerpt
Explore more
