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
Appeal from refusal to certify a proposed class action dismissed. The Court held the chambers judge reasonably found a pension scheme and individual issues made a class proceeding not preferable.
The Federal Court struck a proposed class action by a CAF member, finding it barred by section 9 of the CLPA and also subject to the CAF grievance scheme.
The Federal Court certified, in part, a proposed class action by First Nations against Canada over child welfare harms, leaving aggregate damages uncertified.
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal: it was not plain and obvious that the respondents' defences (no fiduciary duty, causation, mitigation, statutory bar under s.9 CLPA, and failure to exhaust RCMP grievance processes) had no reasonable prospect of success. Those issues raise evidentiary and mixed fact‑and‑law questions properly left for trial and therefore should not be struck at the pleadings stage.
Source excerpt
The factual basis of the appellant's pleaded wrongs (events of 2009 and the ensuing military investigation) is the same factual basis for which he receives disability awards under the Veterans Well-being Act; therefore s.9 of the CLPA bars the action (including alleged Charter remedies) and the Federal Court did not err in principle; moreover the motion record decisions could be considered on r.221 given they were referenced and not challenged; however the Federal Court erred in allowing any part of the claim to continue and the claim should have been struck in its entirety.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed Mr. Enright’s tort claim against Canada on summary judgment, finding it barred by s. 9 of the CLPA because he received disability awards for the same incident.
Section 9 of the CLPA bars the appellant's claim because compensation had been paid from public funds in respect of the same event (the anaplasmosis outbreak on the farm), and s.9, as interpreted in Sarvanis and applied in Langille and Begg, precludes additional claims based on the same factual basis even if framed as different heads of loss.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court struck a damages action against Veterans Affairs, holding it was barred by section 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act and disclosed no viable claim.
The court dismissed most of Canada’s motion to strike a veterans’ class action, allowing Honour of the Crown, fiduciary duty, and Charter claims to proceed, but struck several other causes.
The appeal was dismissed because the Federal Court correctly struck out the action: the majority of the pleaded claims were barred as relitigation of earlier struck proceedings and the purportedly new allegations failed to meet the required legal threshold (including for intentional infliction of nervous shock), rendering the pleadings properly dismissible.
Source excerpt
Explore more
