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
Court of Appeal upholds dismissal of claims against the Kauras and R.K.S., leaves the overservice claim against Caesars to proceed, and dismisses both appeal and cross-appeal.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal in a COVID-era mask supply fraud case, upholding findings of recklessness and personal liability against a corporate officer.
Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, set aside judgment against the corporate appellants and remitted that issue, while otherwise upholding summary judgment and dismissing the counterclaim.
The Court dismissed the appeal with costs because the Federal Court applied the correct standard of review (intervention only for errors of law or palpable and overriding error), there was no palpable and overriding error in the Associate Judge's decision to grant leave to amend, the amended claim pleaded sufficient material facts to justify impleading the individual defendants, and the reasons were adequate given the record and applicable law.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal set aside the dismissal of claims against personal respondents, holding the motion judge wrongly confined the case to veil piercing, but declined summary judgment on the existing record.
The Statement of Claim only alleges acts carried out by the defendants as employees of EVP within the scope of their ostensible authority and contains no allegations of fraud, deceit, dishonesty or true lack of authority necessary to pierce the corporate veil; therefore, even assuming the pleaded facts are true, the claim discloses no reasonable cause of action against the defendants personally and must be dismissed on the pleadings.
Source excerpt
The court refused proposed amendments adding inducing-breach and veil-piercing claims, and struck those pleadings for lack of material facts, while allowing a future properly pleaded inducement application.
The court struck Steelhead’s claims against Pembina in a commercial pleading motion, but allowed an amended notice of civil claim within 45 days.
La Cour rejette les objections fondées sur le secret professionnel et ordonne à Jean-François Malo de répondre aux questions sur la provenance des fonds et de fournir les engagements demandés.
The court refused to adjourn a trial management conference pending a strike application, finding the TMC was needed to ensure trial readiness and that delay was not justified.
Explore more
