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
Federal Court dismissed a judicial review challenging BC’s second CDSA exemption amendment that curtailed decriminalization in public spaces, finding no Charter breach, unreasonableness, or unfairness.
Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an estate-related appeal, holding the handwritten 2014 document was properly read as testamentary only in part and that no palpable error was shown.
The court held that the will required distribution to children alive at the time of distribution, so Jason’s estate did not take a vested share.
The Court interpreted two will gifts in Sydney Carroll’s estate, held a $40,000 legacy to Patricia O'Brien was not conditional, and found a $5,000 gift to Karmen Gozdan had lapsed.
The court rectified a 2019 pour-over will so it applied only to California assets, finding the deceased did not intend to alter his British Columbia estate plan.
The court held a trust removal clause was not uncertain, but it was contrary to public policy. The trustee’s removal of a beneficiary was not a breach of duty.
The motion judge did not err: he properly exercised discretion to exclude extrinsic evidence that would contradict deemed admissions inherent in the default judgment, relied permissibly on the record (including enforcement non-compliance) and reasonably concluded on the pleaded and deemed facts that the judgment debt arose from intentional conversion/appropriation of statutory trust funds amounting to misappropriation or defalcation under s.178(1)(d) BIA; therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The court held that a handwritten 2015 document was an incomplete working paper, not a fixed and final testamentary intention, and refused s. 58 relief.
The court held Honeywell was not covered under a wrap-up policy for Shangri-La construction claims, so XL Insurance had no duty to defend or indemnify.
The Court of Appeal held the inspector’s interpretation of the ALR cannabis regulation was unreasonable, but the permit issue had to be remitted for a soil-base determination.
Explore more
