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 granted judicial review of a CHRC dismissal, finding the investigation lacked sufficient transparency and thoroughness and returning the matter for redetermination.
Leave to appeal refused because the claimant failed to show an arguable case that the General Division used an unfair process, was biased, or made an important factual error; the record demonstrated fair procedure, no bias, and supported GD findings on misrepresentation, earnings allocation, and overpayment.
Source excerpt
Leave to appeal denied because the claimant identified no arguable ground of review: the uncontested evidence showed he had 697 hours when 700 were required, the General Division applied the correct statutory test and conducted a fair hearing with no evidence of bias, and the Appeal Division cannot grant relief based on compassion or perceived unfairness alone.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed Mr. Lim’s judicial review of a CJC screening decision, holding the complaint concerned judicial decision-making rather than misconduct.
Proposed expert evidence was excluded as unnecessary and unqualified under Mohan/White Burgess standards; on the merits the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the Mellor Courthouse's proximity to the HRP detachment creates a probability of juror bias or undermines jury representativeness such that ss.7 or 11(d) are breached—any theoretical confusion or discomfort is speculative and can be addressed by judicial instructions; accordingly the Charter application is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed British Columbia’s application to exclude Jacob Earnshaw’s expert report in an Aboriginal title case, finding the evidence admissible.
The trial judge did not err in refusing to qualify the proposed toxicology expert because the prosecution failed to put on record the expert's attestation that she understood and accepted the duty of impartiality and the voir dire record was insufficient to allow a proper inference; that discretionary ruling is entitled to appellate deference and the Crown's appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The appellants failed to demonstrate any legal or factual error warranting intervention: the Federal Court judge reasonably assessed the affidavit evidence and permissibly found widespread vote buying that could have affected the election result under the FNEA; procedural irregularities in the Notice of Appeal and service were not outcome‑determinative and should have been raised earlier; allegations of bias were unsubstantiated; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the judgment below is affirmed.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Redekop’s appeal, holding the Board’s disciplinary process was fair and the impugned regulations were not invalid.
Leave to appeal was granted because the allegation of bias was not frivolous — it was advanced by a member of the Law Society (an officer of the court) — therefore the procedural fairness/bias grounds have a reasonable chance of success and meet the threshold for leave.
Source excerpt
Explore more
