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 transfers (totaling $10,650) were transfers of property to a non-arm’s length person (spouse) made for no consideration; the transferor owed the Minister at least $10,650 at the time; therefore s.160 applied and the reassessment is to be referred back for reconsideration to reflect a shortfall of $10,650; costs of $625 awarded to the Respondent.
Source excerpt
The Claimant failed to demonstrate an arguable case that the General Division made a jurisdictional, legal, or significant factual error; the General Division identified and applied the correct law, considered the evidence, and reasonably concluded the Commission's determination that the $2,000 advance payment was an overpayment was legally correct; financial hardship or changed circumstances are not legal bases to overturn a correctly decided overpayment, therefore leave to appeal is refused.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed a motion to use the Study Permit Pilot Project, finding the respondent did not consent and the case involved an admissibility issue.
The application for leave to appeal is refused because it was filed within time but the claimant failed to raise any arguable ground that the General Division committed a reviewable error; the General Division correctly applied the law on misconduct, its key factual and credibility findings are supported by the evidence, and there is no basis for the Appeal Division to intervene.
Source excerpt
The complaint is dismissed because the complainant failed to respond to multiple Tribunal communications and did not comply with a clear deadline after being warned that failure to respond could result in dismissal, and the Registry's attempts to contact him were unsuccessful, constituting abandonment.
Source excerpt
Because the complainant elected not to appear or testify and did not obtain consent to have the additional documents treated as evidence, and because the complainant bears the onus to prove discrimination, there was no admissible evidence to support the complaint and it must be dismissed under subsection 53(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Source excerpt
The court ordered the Crown to comply with CPD-3 by giving detailed notices about admissions, their purpose, and the proof required in the voir dire.
The Yukon Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal in part, allowing arguments on hearsay and opinion evidence in a s. 810.2 hearing, but refused the other two grounds.
Because the accused was not given his election on an indictable offence, the guilty plea and resulting verdict were invalid; the appeal is allowed and a new trial is ordered on the cultivation charge under s.7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
Source excerpt
The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the appellants' core allegations lacked corroboration and were undermined by inconsistencies (notably regarding tender documentation, the conduct of the Mexican lawyer, omissions in the Basis of Claim form and contradictory testimony); the psychological report did not establish causation for alleged events; and the new evidence (Exhibit A-1) was not central or sufficiently connected to justify a hearing under s.110(6) IRPA.
Source excerpt
Explore more
