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 found the CERB review decision unreasonable because its reasons were largely unintelligible and did not show a coherent line of analysis.
The petition was allowed and the Tribunal's decision set aside because the Tribunal committed procedural unfairness by deciding the pivotal issue of corporate separation and standing on inferences not put to the petitioner and by making an unreasonable and legally erroneous finding that Just Flooring was a separate corporation; the Tribunal's reasons were also inadequate on credibility, warranting remittal for a rehearing.
Source excerpt
The CRT correctly required the buyer to prove on a balance of probabilities that the implied warranty in s.18(c) of the SGA applied and was breached; the Tribunal's factual findings that the sale did not exclude the implied warranty and that the Van had a pre-existing overheating defect were supported by evidence and not patently unreasonable; the CRT's reasons were adequate; the petition is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Court held the Provincial Court judge erred by including delay occasioned by the Jordan application as Crown/institutional delay and by failing to provide adequate reasons showing the calculation of delay to the anticipated end of trial; properly calculated (718 days less 172 days defence delay = 17.95 months) the delay was within the 18‑month Jordan presumptive limit, so the stay was set aside and the matter remitted for trial.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the Bank of Montreal’s appeal from the dismissal of its civil fraud claim against Makhija.
Bail pending appeal was granted after the court found the conviction appeal was not frivolous and that sparse trial reasons reduced the public-interest case for detention.
The Federal Court held that a TRV refusal was reasonable under Vavilov, finding the applicants had not credibly explained the trip purpose or large bank deposits.
The General Division erred in law by identifying an allegedly reasonable alternative (continuing to work while looking for other employment) without explaining how that alternative addressed the claimant’s uncontested and serious workplace safety risks; on the record the claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving, so he had just cause and is not disqualified from EI benefits — the Appeal Division substitutes that decision for the General Division’s decision.
Source excerpt
The appeal is allowed because the CRA's reasons were inadequate: the decision letter failed to explain the basis for distinguishing Bonnybrook or for concluding s.220(3) could not be relied on to extend s.164(1), and the CRA did not record or solicit submissions on that theory; the proper remedy is to set aside the Federal Court judgment and remit the matter to the CRA to permit submissions and to redetermine with adequate reasons; the court will not itself grant the discretionary tax relief.
Source excerpt
The appeal is allowed because the adjudicator's Summary Report contained only conclusory findings and failed to set out the evidentiary basis for conclusions, which is an error of law preventing meaningful appellate review; the matter is remitted to Small Claims Court for a new hearing before a different adjudicator and costs are awarded to the appellant in the amount of $324.55.
Source excerpt
Explore more
