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 for Ontario struck an affidavit filed on a leave motion, finding it contained impermissible opinion, argument, and unsupported public-importance claims.
The court sustained the Municipality's objections in part and ordered redaction/striking of specified paragraphs and portions of the Arni B. Lively affidavit because those passages were speculative, constituted inadmissible opinion or submissions, were hearsay without proper sourcing or belief statements, or were irrelevant absent a factual nexus to Lively's claimed delays; paragraphs 18-20, 25, 29-30, 45-48, 51, 62-70, parts of 71 and 74, 73 and 76 are to be redacted/struck as detailed in the judgment, while other challenged paragraphs (eg. 13-17) were left intact; costs are reserved to be d…
Source excerpt
The trial judge erred by admitting or failing to give a limiting instruction for the unsolicited opinion evidence of the arresting officers that the items in the car were consistent with drug trafficking; that error could have influenced the jury in this circumstantial case, the curative proviso does not apply, and a new trial is required. The other challenged aspects of the trial (inferences from cell phones, Vetrovec caution, inference from value) were not errors.
Source excerpt
The Court admitted an email about settlement advice for a limited purpose, finding it relevant to whether the plaintiffs reasonably relied on advice and reserved final admissibility.
The trial judge erred by admitting conclusory opinion evidence from five surveillance officers that the appellant's observed conduct was or was consistent with drug trafficking because the Crown did not qualify them as experts, the opinions were unnecessary for the jury to decide the facts, and the opinions fell outside permissible lay opinion under Graat; the erroneous admission was prominent and prejudicial in a jury trial and the Crown failed to discharge the burden under the curative proviso, therefore convictions must be set aside and a new trial ordered.
Source excerpt
The court applied CPR 39.04 and established jurisprudential criteria to strike specific portions of the plaintiff's affidavit that were legal conclusions, irrelevant, speculative, or opinion/medical assertions beyond lay knowledge, while retaining paragraphs drawing on personal knowledge and circumstantial assertions relevant to authorship and motive; the motion was granted in part and costs of $2,500 awarded to the defendant.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the Federal Court's exclusion of the challenged materials as hearsay or inadmissible lay opinion and concluded the appellants failed to adduce admissible evidence that the judicial appointment process undermines institutional judicial independence or violated ss.7, 11(d) or 24 of the Charter or s.96 of the Constitution Act, 1867; speculative submissions about what could occur in the appointment process are insufficient to establish a breach.
Source excerpt
The court exercised its gatekeeper function under the Civil Procedure Rules and Evidence Act: strike specific phrases that were inadmissible opinion or irrelevant hearsay (including the specified words in Sharon Samland para.19, much of Diane Peters paras.34 and 37, and the final sentence of para.38), but allow other challenged passages to remain for the hearing judge to assess in context and under s.45's corroboration requirement; the principled approach to hearsay does not save statements that are neither necessary nor reliable or are purely opinionated about what the deceased allegedly sai…
Source excerpt
The court applied the Mohan criteria and found Dr. Salsman impartial and qualified to give opinion evidence as an Emergency Room Physician on loss of consciousness and its causes (including choking and blunt force trauma) and effects, but held that a non-medical opinion in his report — the sentence 'This strike is not permitted in Boxing due to its inherent danger.' — exceeded his proper scope and must be removed; analogies to combat fighting are outside the permitted scope and will be addressed if raised at trial.
Source excerpt
The court exercised Rule 39.04 and Waverley principles to surgically strike discrete inadmissible portions of the Jacobs and Gillis affidavits while refusing a wholesale strike; hearsay and unqualified opinion evidence that lacked source, threshold reliability or expert assurances was struck, but narrative context not tendered for truth was allowed to remain.
Source excerpt
Explore more
