Canada Case Law

Oleynik v. Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador

Court

Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed: the Court held the appeal judge did not err — case management ordered without oral argument did not breach procedural fairness given inherent jurisdiction and rules; additional evidence was irrelevant and not admitted; no reasonable apprehension of bias or conflict established; the record was complete; amendments made were limited to clerical corrections; no palpable and overriding errors were shown. Costs awarded to respondent under Column 3.

Source excerpt

• Procedural fairness
• Conflict of interest
• Admission of additional evidence
• Case management
• Functus officio
• Duty of good faith

Read case analysis

Macdonald v. Canada (Public Safety)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed a judicial review of a CBSA grievance decision, finding the decision reasonably addressed bias, fairness, and disclosure concerns.

• Procedural fairness
• Reasonable apprehension of bias
• Conflict of interest
• Disclosure obligations in administrative investigations
• Grievance under fpslra
• Costs

Read case analysis

Utano v. Canada (Public Safety)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed Antonio Utano’s judicial review of a CBSA grievance decision, finding the process reasonably addressed bias, fairness, and disclosure concerns.

• Judicial review
• Procedural fairness
• Conflict of interest
• Institutional bias
• Disclosure obligations
• Admissibility of new evidence

Read case analysis

Turner v. Turner

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The applicant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the parties mutually destroyed the cohabitation agreement in 2002; photocopy evidence was admissible as the originals were unavailable after a diligent search; credibility findings did not favour the applicant sufficiently to meet her burden; therefore the cohabitation agreement remains binding on the parties.

Source excerpt

• Cohabitation agreement
• Mutual rescission/destruction
• Best evidence rule
• Conflict of interest
• Full and frank disclosure
• Credibility findings

Read case analysis

Sirois (Re)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court refused to revoke the inspector and dismissed the applications to examine the trustee and for declaratory/ethical relief because the contested proceedings did not involve the bankrupt estate as required by s.116(2), the proposed trustee examination was a fishing expedition not properly tied to estate administration under s.163(2), and the bankrupt failed to show lack of good faith under s.4.2(2) or misuse under the Code of Ethics; however, the trustee was ordered to make available specified non-privileged categories of documents for review within 21 days with redactions to protect p…

Source excerpt

• Inspector appointment
• Trustee examination
• Inspection of records
• Disclosure and confidentiality
• Discharge from bankruptcy
• Conflict of interest

Read case analysis

Timeless Pictures Inc. v. Chandler

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

A prima facie inability to pay was established by the pleadings and supporting evidence (bank balances, significant recent legal fees, management fees, large intercorporate debt and unclear recovery of receivables); balancing the risk of a dry judgment against any stifling of the plaintiffs' claim, the court exercised its discretion under s.236 BCA to order security for costs in the reduced amount of $60,000 to be posted by May 3, 2026 and held interest-bearing in plaintiffs' counsel trust account, stayed the action pending compliance, and declined to order a personal undertaking by the major…

Source excerpt

• Security for costs
• Conflict of interest
• Shareholder dispute
• Asset transfers
• Personal indemnity/undertaking

Read case analysis

Anroop v. Naqvi

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal, held that the Fourth Will of Reka Anroop was invalid, and set aside the costs order below.

• Testamentary capacity
• Undue influence
• Forgery
• Conflict of interest
• Suspicious circumstances
• Costs allocation

Read case analysis

Tsawout First Nation v. Claxton

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed: the Federal Court did not err in treating the Agreement and the Band Manager's January 12, 2023 letter as part of a continuing course of conduct, in finding jurisdiction to entertain the judicial review, and in concluding respondents were owed procedural fairness which was breached by entering the Agreement without hearing them and by refusing to refer their notice to the Panel; accordingly the Federal Court's order that the Panel address the notice of dispute was upheld; the Agreement was not declared void by the Federal Court and that outcome was not disturbed.

Source excerpt

• Procedural fairness
• Judicial review
• Land code dispute resolution
• Possession/eviction
• Conflict of interest
• Jurisdiction

Read case analysis

Superintendent of Real Estate v. Financial Services Tribunal

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Court concluded the Hearing Officer's Liability Decision was reasonable and procedurally fair: the Hearing Officer had a rational, transparent chain of analysis that supported findings that the $50,000 advanced was a loan and that advancing those funds placed the licensee in a conflict of interest; the FST Panel Chair's conclusion that the Liability Decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair misapprehended the Hearing Officer's reliance on evidence and exceeded the FST's remedial scope by effectively staying the disciplinary process; the FST order was quashed, the Hearing Officer's…

Source excerpt

• Judicial review
• Reasonableness standard
• Procedural fairness
• Conflict of interest
• Hearsay evidence
• Remedies and remittal

Read case analysis

Bains v. Barker

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Where an adjudicator has instructed counsel and no demonstrable prejudice or conflict arising from counsel's representation of both the adjudicator and the Board is shown, the court will not remove counsel; whether the adjudicator acted in an official or private capacity is relevant to the merits but does not bar retention of counsel and the Board may participate when interests affecting it are at stake, and the subsequent challenge was res judicata.

Source excerpt

• Standing of counsel
• Conflict of interest
• Misfeasance in public office
• Default judgment
• Res judicata
• Judicial/adjudicator immunity

Read case analysis