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 Court of Appeal allowed a Crown appeal from acquittal for indecent assault, holding that intentional sexual contact between an adult and child amounted to assault.
The appeal is dismissed because the General Division did not err: the legality of the employer’s vaccination policy and whether it formed part of the employment contract were outside the tribunal’s remit for determining misconduct; misconduct is assessed by whether the employee wilfully or knowingly failed to comply with employment obligations and was aware dismissal was a real possibility, and employer policies can constitute such obligations even if not in the original contract.
Source excerpt
The General Division correctly found that the claimant's deliberate refusal to comply with a clear employer COVID-19 vaccination policy constituted misconduct under the EI Act because the conduct was intentional and foreseeably likely to result in job loss; the Tribunal properly declined to assess the legality or reasonableness of the employer's policy and did not err in law or fact.
Source excerpt
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable reviewable error under s.58(1); the General Division lawfully applied established EI jurisprudence that a deliberate refusal to follow a duly implemented vaccination policy constitutes misconduct and the Tribunal properly declined to adjudicate accommodation or constitutional claims outside its jurisdiction.
Source excerpt
Leave to appeal was refused because the claimant failed to identify any arguable reviewable error of the General Division; the General Division correctly applied the law and evidence to find the claimant wilfully refused to comply with Directive 6 and lost his job for misconduct under the EI Act, so the appeal had no reasonable chance of success.
Source excerpt
Refusal to comply with a reasonable employer vaccination policy, when done willfully and with knowledge of the risk of dismissal, constitutes misconduct under the EI Act and disqualifies the employee from receiving EI benefits.
Source excerpt
The stay was denied because the appellant failed to show a realistically strong chance of success, would not suffer irreparable harm from a single three‑month injection, and the balance of convenience favoured authorizing treatment due to risks posed to staff and third parties; the motion judge had properly applied s.19(2) and his factual findings are entitled to deference.
Source excerpt
A bedpan vigil is a search that may be authorized by a s.487.01 general warrant, but a general warrant cannot lawfully authorize detention contrary to s.503; the warrant in this case was defective for failing to account for s.503 and, independently, the manner of execution was unreasonable and violated Charter ss.8, 7 and 9; applying Grant the drug evidence must be excluded and convictions set aside.
Source excerpt
The court found no Charter breach because rights were read shortly before hospital transfer and no legal obligation existed to re‑read them, the police were passive custodians and did not request bodily samples, the packages were voluntarily excreted and there was little expectation of privacy, and therefore the evidence was admissible and the Charter application dismissed.
Source excerpt
Applying the Jordan balancing test with specific regard to YCJA principles, the court found that because the applicant was an extremely young (13) first‑time offender, the offence arose from a domestic altercation with no identification issue, there was minimal risk of recidivism on the record and significant potential for psychological harm and adverse impacts on rehabilitation, the impact of ordering DNA samples would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest; accordingly the Crown's mandatory DNA order was refused.
Source excerpt
Explore more
