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 allowed an appeal where restitution for unjust enrichment was granted despite not being pleaded, with an insufficient record and procedural unfairness.
The Federal Court struck out a self-represented plaintiff’s Charter challenge to COVID-19 air-travel vaccination requirements, finding no reasonable cause of action and no basis to amend.
The court reconsidered an earlier trespass ruling and held the estate could not recover damages because the loss flowed from an unremoved CPL, not trespass.
Pleadings that allege a plaintiff's ulterior motive are irrelevant and may be struck out as scandalous, frivolous or vexatious under r.25.11(b) where the alleged motive is not an essential element of any cause of action or defence and is otherwise not relevant; accordingly paragraphs 8 and 37, which pleaded an ulterior motive to obtain a post-closing purchase price reduction, were properly struck and leave to amend was properly refused.
Source excerpt
The common employer issue did not raise a different cause of action engaging the Limitations Act; any pleading deficiencies did not prejudice the appellant because the appellant had notice of the claim before trial; and the trial judge's factual finding that Mr. Nourse had authority to bind the appellant is supported by the evidence, warranting deference; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Appeal from a dismissed breach of contract claim. The Court of Appeal found no palpable factual error or legal error in the trial judge’s interpretation and findings.
The court granted leave for the defendants to file third party notices adding the British Columbia Crown, finding the proposed pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action.
The motion judge did not err in refusing leave to amend because the appellant declined to provide the specifics requested and the proposed amendment would entirely recast the pleaded claim, which as pleaded concerned marks and unfair treatment rather than the alleged contractual right to graduate in 2004.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed the claim against Burns Lake, held most claims against RCMP officers were statute-barred, struck the sexual assault allegation, and allowed time to replead malicious prosecution.
The court dismissed plaintiffs’ motion to amend their claim to plead choice of law for Minera el Pilon’s claims, holding the proposed paragraph was an improper pleading of law.
Explore more
