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 dismissed a s. 24(2) Charter application and admitted evidence from a search of the accused’s fanny pack, finding the breaches moderate and the evidence important.
The discoverability doctrine applies to s.56 IRB claims; the LAT erred in holding a pre-emptive denial in May 2016 could start the limitations clock irrespective of eligibility; there was no implicit factual finding by the LAT that the respondent had applied for IRBs in May 2016, so the Divisional Court did not err in concluding discoverability applied and remitting the matter to the LAT for rehearing.
Source excerpt
The court granted a s. 24(2) Charter application and excluded drugs seized from a vehicle after finding multiple serious Charter breaches by police.
The two‑year limitation in the Standard Automobile Policy and Regulations applies to Section C property damage claims and runs from when the loss or damage was sustained (and in any event from the date the insurer communicated denial); plaintiff had knowledge of the loss and a clear denial by September 13, 2019, so the action filed December 17, 2021 was commenced after the contractual two‑year limitation and is statute‑barred. The plaintiff's bad faith claim is consequential to the denial and falls within the same two‑year contractual limitation; no genuine issue of material fact remains requ…
Source excerpt
The trial judge erred in law by failing to account for her own finding of systemic police practice when assessing the seriousness of the s.8 breach; re‑weighing the Grant factors on correct principles, the court excluded evidence obtained from the Dell computer but admitted the USB thumb drive and basement photographs, set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed Google’s motion to determine whether the Patent Act’s six-year limitation period bars pre-2012 reasonable compensation claims under s. 55(2).
The production order was invalid because the affiant repeatedly used a 'grounds to suspect' standard rather than the statutory 'reasonable grounds to believe', so the subscriber information search was unauthorized and breached s.8; without those records the search warrant could not validly issue; the evidence must be excluded under s.24(2) because the police conduct was negligent and had a serious impact on privacy and dignity, and exclusion is necessary to avoid bringing the administration of justice into disrepute; appeal allowed and acquittals entered.
Source excerpt
Motion dismissed because adding the 2002 reassessment was a fundamental amendment, not a clerical correction, and pleading amendment principles do not override the statutory objection/appeal scheme; Application to extend time dismissed because the 2002 notice of confirmation was sent February 27, 2012, the 90‑day appeal period expired May 28, 2012 and the one‑year grace period expired May 28, 2013, so the Court had no jurisdiction to grant relief under s.167(5)(a).
Source excerpt
The Court held the application judge did not err: omissions and police-database material in the ITO did not demonstrate bad faith or deliberate falsehood, the nexus between the residence and trafficking was established by observed hand-to-hand transaction making the seized evidence discoverable, and thus evidence was properly admitted; conviction appeal dismissed and sentence varied only to reduce the s.86(1) term to one year concurrent.
Source excerpt
The General Division erred in law and fact by dismissing the application as statute-barred without considering the presumption against interfering with accrued rights, the absurdity canon, and applicable common law doctrines (including discoverability and special circumstances); the Appeal Division allowed the appeal and referred the matter back to the General Division for a hearing on the merits, instructing that a different General Division member hear the matter.
Source excerpt
Explore more
