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 Tribunal joined two human rights complaints by E.F. against Correctional Service Canada into one inquiry, finding common factual and legal issues and no sufficient prejudice.
The court quashed an RTB decision after finding procedural unfairness in a post-hearing amendment and patent unreasonableness in the handling of frustration under s. 56.1.
Although the tribunal accepted the appellant's factual circumstances (ADHD unmedicated, moving, name change), she did not act as a reasonable and prudent person for the entire delay, lacked reasonably prompt steps to determine entitlement, and no exceptional circumstances existed; therefore she failed to prove good cause and the application cannot be antedated.
Source excerpt
Appellant voluntarily resigned but did not establish just cause because he had reasonable alternatives (notably awaiting an independent CNESST inspection and pursuing employer remedies); the evidence did not demonstrate imminent risk or criminal negligence sufficient to justify immediate quitting, therefore he is disqualified from EI benefits.
Source excerpt
Judicial review of an RCMP grievance decision was granted because the adjudicator unreasonably applied precedent and misread the Depressed Market Benefit rules.
Section 14(2) did not apply because the proceedings were not hearings in respect of a person; the private presentation procedure was the existing and expected process (requested in 2021 and used in 2022 without objection); the presence of Commission legal counsel did not cause prejudice or deny parties the opportunity to be represented; on the reasonableness standard the Commission's process did not breach procedural fairness and the application for judicial review is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed a petition for judicial review of an immediate roadside driving prohibition, finding no unreasonable delay and no reviewable error in the Superintendent’s decision.
Majority: The Board did not deny procedural fairness because the hearing record shows the appellant expressly stated he was prepared to represent himself, and Policy Guideline 2 requires the mini‑inquiry only if the subject refuses counsel; accordingly no further inquiry was required and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed Brad Gladman’s judicial review, finding no breach of procedural fairness in the IRM process and upholding the reviewer’s reasonableness on DS-05 promotion criteria.
The court held the Environmental Appeal Board breached procedural fairness by seeking extra record material after submissions closed, and sent the standing issue back for reconsideration.
Explore more
