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 allowed the plaintiff to testify by videoconference in a will dispute, with conditions to protect fairness. The request concerning Kuniaki Matsubara was adjourned.
The application to reopen is denied because the panel found no breach of natural justice: the record shows applicants were informed in writing and via interpreter of the 15 day BOC deadline and the special hearing; applicants failed to file BOCs and failed to attend the hearing without a reasonable explanation; the failures reflect lack of diligence, not procedural unfairness, so reopening is not warranted.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed a refugee-claim judicial review, finding any interpretation errors were minor and that reliance on the applicant’s signed port-of-entry form was reasonable.
The Federal Court granted judicial review because the RPD failed to disclose the spot-audit results on interpretation and did not let the applicant comment before deciding credibility.
The claimants' evidence contained material inconsistencies and credibility deficiencies, they failed to provide reliable corroboration and did not rebut the presumption of available state protection on the clear and convincing standard; documentary evidence shows state efforts and remedies for Roma in Hungary, therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.
Source excerpt
Federal Court granted judicial review of a refugee decision, holding that possible mistranslation and an unsupported plausibility finding undermined the IRB’s credibility analysis.
A British Columbia Supreme Court judge dismissed an application to have the full jury charge delivered only in French in a bilingual joint conspiracy trial.
The court held the accused's substantive right under s.530 to a trial in his chosen official language was violated because the judge and Crown did not consistently speak French as required by s.530 and s.530.1(e), and the transcription obligation under s.530.1(g) was not met for the first five days; the accused had not validly consented to a bilingual trial; the violation is substantial and the appropriate remedy is to quash the conviction and order a new trial (s.686(1)(b) not applicable to cure this substantive breach).
Source excerpt
Explore more
