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 enforced a protective order after confidential information was disclosed to foreign counsel, ordered remedial steps, and awarded fixed costs.
The court allowed the Beadle Defendants to amend their response to plead abuse of process based on the Qatar action and limited discovery to 2 hours.
The court refused to allow most witnesses to testify by video from China, citing credibility concerns, translators, foreign technical risks, and no detailed plan.
The court held British Columbia had territorial competence over contract and debt claims about engine repair and rental work, and refused to stay the action in favour of Korea.
The court refused to order a pre-trial examination of Elsa Chyrum under Rules 7-2, 7-5, or 7-8, and adjourned the application for written questions.
The Tax Court has jurisdiction and the applicants have standing to apply to vary the implied undertaking, but the implied undertaking applies to a party's own discovery (including transcripts, undertakings and produced documents). The applicants failed to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities the exceptional public interest necessary to waive the undertaking; their request was a fishing expedition and would prejudice privacy and the efficient conduct of litigation, so the motion to waive or declare the undertaking inapplicable was dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed an application to stay two appeals pending a separate settlement-enforcement action, finding the prejudice balance and readiness of the appeals favoured proceeding.
The court continued an order restraining foreign litigation over ZSM’s legal representative, but allowed a trust order over 37 million RMB to expire once set conditions were met.
The court ordered the plaintiff to post $150,000 security for costs, finding a real risk the defendant could not recover costs and no real risk of stifling the claim.
Because Mr. Bunford advanced unfounded, reprehensible allegations and engaged in deliberate abuses of process — including withdrawing contests, discontinuing applications, refiling actions for the same relief, failing to comply with disclosure orders, and pursuing contemporaneous litigation in Belgium to avoid adjudication — the conduct crossed the exceptional threshold for solicitor and client costs; accordingly he must fully indemnify Ms. Molhant Proost and Marie‑Claude Bunford for their legal expenses in the captioned proceedings, to be taxed by an adjudicator; the claim for indemnity agai…
Source excerpt
Explore more
