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 British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed Dow Silicones’ appeal from an order refusing to strike Cascade Aqua-Tech’s amended third party notice.
Application dismissed because defendants failed to show the proposed cross-examination would likely yield relevant information beyond what is apparent on the face of the affidavits, and the marginal utility did not outweigh the risk of delay and added cost; timing alone did not preclude consideration but did not justify leave.
Source excerpt
The court exercised its discretion under the Rules and Fu factors to admit the late evidence for a limited purpose: Jamieson is permitted to amend its trial brief to add Mitchell Kiernan and to introduce his evidence in chief by affidavit and the Health Canada documents obtained after trial, because the documents are reliable and necessary to determine issues on the merits, the limited use reduces prejudice, and the interests of justice and need for a complete evidentiary record outweighed the lack of a reasonable explanation for late disclosure.
Source excerpt
Le tribunal a rejeté une action en responsabilité du fait des produits après avoir conclu que les avertissements du produit étaient suffisants et que le demandeur ne les avait pas lus ni suivis.
The court approved a nationwide class settlement involving alleged ABS module defects in Hyundai and Kia vehicles, along with class counsel fees and a representative honorarium.
Appeal from class-proceeding certification partly allowed. Battery and several remedial common issues were struck, but the rest of the certification order was upheld.
The court ruled on expert evidence in a certified class action, striking passages where experts interpreted law or regulatory decisions while admitting the remaining scientific opinion.
Taking the pleaded facts as true, the failure to incorporate authorized user technology made physical harm from stolen firearms reasonably foreseeable and gave rise to proximity and a duty of care not negated by policy, so negligence is arguable and the negligence claim is certifiable as a class action; strict liability and public nuisance claims are plain and obvious failures and are struck.
Source excerpt
The motion judge erred by making factual findings and weighing Mountain View factors rigidly; the appellant produced a plausible explanation for the default (belief that NauticStar was addressing the issue under warranty) and an arguable defence as to the nature of the defects and warranty coverage (satisfying the 'air of reality' test), and the interests of justice required setting aside the default judgment to allow the action to be decided on the merits.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed retailers’ request to bifurcate and temporarily stay a proposed class action over alleged defective dishwashers, finding no sufficient prejudice or efficiency gain.
Explore more
