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 refused to dismiss an action for late compliance with a security-for-costs order, though it found no reasonable excuse for the delay and awarded costs to the defendants.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed Kathleen Walker’s appeal from an adjournment refusal and a vexatious litigant order made against her.
The Court struck the notice of appeal because the appellant failed to identify any grounds that could be addressed by this Court, the appeal was plainly without merit and served no practical purpose, and therefore had no chance of success; costs of $250 were fixed in favour of the Crown.
Source excerpt
The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Gonzalez’s application to vary a chambers order, finding no reviewable error and no merit in the request.
The Court of Appeal quashed Chang Jacques’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that no appealable order arose from the judicial management conference or later email.
The court dismissed a s. 18 application to declare Robert Grosz a vexatious litigant, finding his conduct problematic but not enough to meet the statutory threshold.
The court declared Dr. Hokhold a vexatious litigant, restrained him from starting proceedings against Ms. Gerbrandt or her family without leave, and awarded special costs.
The appeal was dismissed because the application judge properly denied standing due to the appellant's non‑compliance with a prior peremptory order and properly ejected him for repeated disruptive and abusive conduct; the appellant's illness and occasional prior successes did not excuse non‑compliance or negate the long history of vexatious litigation, and Belleville was a proper forum given his residence and prior conduct.
Source excerpt
A partial stay was granted because the low threshold for a 'serious issue' was met, the appellant would suffer irreparable harm by losing the right to appeal, and the balance of convenience favored permitting the appeal to proceed subject to conditions requiring compliance with Federal Courts Rules time limits; the stay is limited to allowing this appeal only.
Source excerpt
The court held the action remained in the fast-track regime and awarded the plaintiff lump sum costs of $11,000 under Rule 15-1(15)(c).
Explore more
