Esheria Canada Case Law
Sign in
Canada Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Canada Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter Canada case law

Results update automatically as you type.

Canada decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Construction law 2026 BCSC 889

The Owners, Strata Plan EPS1544 v. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada and in French, Royal & Sun Alliance du Canada, Societe D'Assurances

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Receivership Funds Agreement did not substantially alter the landscape of the Condominium Action because its salient terms (receivership, insurer subrogation and cooperation obligations, and the insurer's undertaking to complete certain remedial work potentially using receiver funds) were already disclosed in the pleadings and correspondence; therefore immediate disclosure was not required and LHR's application for a stay or dismissal as an abuse of process was dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Subrogation
  • Breach of warranty
  • Abuse of process
  • Disclosure of settlement agreements
  • Receivership funds distribution
  • Negligence
Read case analysis
Tort 2026 BCCA 189

British Columbia Athletic Commissioner v. Simon Fraser University

Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal

The appeal is allowed because the Athletic Commissioner Act and its regulations do not, expressly or by implication, create a private law duty of care to individual athletes, and SFU's amended third party notice fails to plead the material facts necessary to establish proximity (the key basis for a novel duty). Bare allegations that the regulator knew or ought to have known of contraventions are insufficient; therefore the third party notice is plain and obvious to fail and must be struck (without prejudice to SFU applying to refile if material facts are available).

Source excerpt

  • Duty of care
  • Proximity
  • Negligence
  • Strike pleadings
  • Regulator liability
  • Athletic regulation
Read case analysis
Tort 2026 BCCA 186

Niescierowicz v. Brookes

Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge did not err in her jury instructions or in admitting the Alberta statement of claim for limited non‑truth purposes, the judge properly answered the jury's question directing them to consider the totality of the evidence and burden of proof, counsel's remarks did not warrant a mistrial and, critically, the jury's verdict on liability is supportable on a reasonable view of the evidence and therefore is owed deference.

Source excerpt

  • Motor vehicle collisions
  • Negligence
  • Jury instructions
  • Admission of documentary evidence
  • Mistrial
  • Perverse verdict
Read case analysis
Torts 2026 BCSC 726

Begg v. Provincial Rental Housing Corporation

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

By the end of October 2025 the aggregate of discovery and expert evidence exposed fundamental gaps in the plaintiff's case (notably absence of evidence to establish the applicable standard of care and causation) such that the March 6, 2023 walk-away offer ought reasonably to have been accepted by that time; therefore defendants are entitled to Scale B costs to October 31, 2025 and double costs thereafter, plus costs of the application.

Source excerpt

  • Negligence
  • No-evidence motion
  • Offer to settle
  • Double costs
  • Standard of care
  • Causation
Read case analysis
Civil procedure 2026 BCSC 587

Royal Bank of Canada v. MacIntyre

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court set aside the RBC and BDC third party notices under Rule 3-5(8) because they failed to plead facts establishing any entitlement to contribution/indemnity or other connection to the narrow debt claims and would massively and prejudicially expand straightforward debt litigation into broad public law and Charter inquiries; the MacIntyre NOCC was struck under Rule 9-5(1)(a) against AGC and the Province because, assuming pleaded facts true, it was plain and obvious the claims had no reasonable prospect of success given lack of pleaded proximity/duty, statutory immunity (PHA s.92), failur…

Source excerpt

  • Third party notice
  • Misfeasance in public office
  • Negligence
  • Statutory immunity
  • Charter damages
  • Striking pleadings
Read case analysis
Tort law 2026 BCSC 577

Imani v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

The NOCC fails to plead essential material facts and legal elements for the asserted causes of action, rests on speculative future harm rather than present injury, and the record (including the transcript and reports) does not substantiate the alleged falsehoods; alternative administrative remedies exist; therefore the claim discloses no reasonable cause of action and cannot succeed and must be struck under Rule 9-5(1)(a) and (b) without leave to amend.

Source excerpt

  • Negligence
  • Misfeasance in public office
  • Defamation
  • Charter s.7
  • Charter s.15
  • Pleadings and rule 9-5 striking
Read case analysis
Civil procedure 2026 BCSC 564

Galang v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

Parts 1 and 3 of the Further Amended Notice of Civil Claim were struck out with leave to amend because the pleadings contained substantial amounts of evidence and unnecessary material and failed to concisely plead material facts and the specific elements required to meet statutory immunities and vicarious liability issues; summary judgment was denied because affidavit evidence was inadequate, hearsay concerns and disputed records created genuine issues for trial; security for costs was denied because plaintiff's impecuniosity and steps taken to address finances made an order disproportionate…

Source excerpt

  • Striking pleadings
  • Summary judgment
  • Security for costs
  • Vicarious liability
  • Statutory immunity
  • Mental health act detention
Read case analysis
Torts 2026 BCSC 567

Dwyer v. Interior Health Authority

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held that claims brought on behalf of the deceased for non-pecuniary loss are barred by WESA and therefore those portions of the NOCC must be struck; conversely, it is not plain and obvious that Mr. Dwyer's personal claims — including as substitute decision-maker and for negligent infliction of mental distress related to the defendants' alleged failure to respect an advance directive and MRA — have no prospect of success, so those claims may proceed and the plaintiff is granted leave to amend; the Rule 9-6 summary dismissal application was refused as premature pending amendment.

Source excerpt

  • Duty of care
  • Negligence
  • Advance directives
  • Representation agreements
  • Palliative care
  • Summary judgment
Read case analysis
Tort 2026 BCCA 119

Abbotsford (City) v. Mostertman

Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal

The appeal is allowed in part: the chambers judge correctly found the plaintiffs provided a realistic, fact‑grounded methodology and adequately pleaded negligence and both private and public nuisance claims, and correctly rejected a fatal conflict between Inner and Outer Prairie class members on the common issues; however, certification of the subclass of property owners subject to registered indemnity covenants (the Indemnity Class) and the appointment of their representative plaintiffs are set aside because the judge failed to satisfy s.4(1)(e) by addressing the unresolved conflicts, notice…

Source excerpt

  • Class certification
  • Common issues
  • Representative plaintiff conflicts
  • Methodology and expert evidence
  • Private nuisance
  • Public nuisance
Read case analysis
Class actions 2026 BCSC 422

Wesley v. British Columbia

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Court certified the action as a class proceeding because the pleadings, read generously and assuming pleaded facts true, disclose viable causes of action for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, misfeasance in public office against Canada and the Province in respect of post-immunity periods and as to the Indigenous Subclass, battery/medical negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against Dr. MacKenzie as properly pleaded, there is some evidence of an identifiable class and Indigenous subclass of two or more, and the claims raise common issues the determination of which will materially ad…

Source excerpt

  • Certification
  • Negligence
  • Breach of fiduciary duty
  • Misfeasance in public office
  • Unjust enrichment
  • Vicarious liability
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

Canada decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.