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 of Appeal dismissed Dr. Watt’s motion for leave as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process, and barred further motions without leave.
The Commission's remedy ordering staff‑assisted mediation and, if unsuccessful, final offer arbitration was a reasonable, discretionary response to an undue preference finding; its reasons were adequate when read in context, Rogers waived its complaint about new evidence, and claims that the Commission lacked power or was functus officio were either not raised below or unpersuasive; appeal and judicial review are dismissed.
Source excerpt
The orders for subpoenas and letters of request derive their procedural authority from Part 7 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules (Rule 7-8 and Rule 7-1) rather than constituting independent authority under the Subpoena (Interprovincial) Act or the court's inherent jurisdiction; accordingly the orders are limited appeal orders requiring leave, and leave to appeal is denied because the proposed appeal lacks sufficient significance and merit and would unduly hinder the progress of the underlying proceeding.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that an order adding parties did not finally dispose of a limitations defence, so the appeal was interlocutory and was quashed.
The Court has jurisdiction to consider applications to amend leave applications after the s.60 30-day period, but must refuse amendments that are so significant they effectively constitute an application for extension of time; the proposed amendments here fundamentally reframed the appeal and therefore were dismissed as an impermissible extension of time.
Source excerpt
The restitution order was set aside because the sentencing judge erred in principle by imposing a substantial s.738 restitution order without inviting submissions or applying the requisite legal framework (including consideration of restraint, fit and the offender's ability to pay); appellate reconsideration required setting the order aside.
Source excerpt
The Yukon Court of Appeal dismissed an extension and leave application, holding the proposed appeal from an interlocutory order had no reasonable prospect of success.
Leave to appeal was refused because, on the interests of justice, the proposed appeal would not advance the underlying judicial review, some grounds were only arguable or fact‑specific and entitled to deference, the petition was promptly rescheduled for hearing shortly making any appeal likely moot, and the balance of factors (including potential distraction and lack of broader significance) weighed against granting leave.
Source excerpt
Leave to appeal was denied because the appellants failed to raise an arguable issue; the contested scheduling decision falls within the broad discretion of the case management judge and did not demonstrate a reviewable error warranting further appeal.
Source excerpt
Permission to appeal refused because the applicant failed to raise an arguable case that the General Division erred in finding he lacked the required contributory period (only three qualifying years within the relevant six-year window), and financial hardship cannot override CPP statutory contribution requirements.
Source excerpt
Explore more
