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
Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a s. 137.1 dismissal, holding the action failed at the substantial-merit stage and the costs award stood.
Federal Court dismissed approval of a third-party litigation funding agreement in a proposed competition class action, finding the deal unfair to class members and champertous.
BC Hydro sought to strike a civil claim as an abuse of process, arguing the litigation funding and control arrangements were champertous. The court dismissed the application.
The motion judge erred as a matter of law by construing s.137.1(3) too narrowly and by assessing the merits at that stage; a report to police is an expression relating to a matter of public interest and the appellant satisfied s.137.1(3); the matter is remitted to a different judge to determine the s.137.1(4) factors.
Source excerpt
Federal Court approved a litigation funding agreement in a proposed Competition Act class action over generic drug price-fixing, with limited confidentiality and class counsel designation.
The Federal Court approved a litigation funding agreement in this proposed class action and allowed most confidentiality redactions, but required disclosure of the fee caps.
The court refused to stay or decline jurisdiction in a litigation-funding dispute, finding British Columbia was the clearly more appropriate forum under CJPTA s. 11.
The assignment of the debt complied with s.53 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act; assignments of debts are not champertous and the motives of the assignee do not invalidate a valid assignment of a debt, therefore enforcement by Clark was lawful and the appeal fails.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court granted Setanta summary judgment for copyright infringement over unauthorized UFC broadcasts, awarding $20,000 in statutory damages and a permanent injunction.
Although the agreement was not champertous and simply capped Aecon's recovery, the parties' failure to disclose the agreement immediately constituted an abuse of process; the proper remedy was to stay the Third Party and Fourth Party proceedings and award costs to the appellant.
Source excerpt
Explore more
