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 Supreme Court of Canada held that an Elections Canada postal-code error on special-ballot return envelopes was an irregularity that affected the result and annulled the Terrebonne election.
The Tax Court dismissed an appeal for an eligible dependant amount, holding the appellant remained legally required to pay child support under an unvaried consent order.
The Tax Court dismissed Brad Milne’s CERS appeal, holding that a studio in his rented home was part of a self-contained domestic establishment and not a qualifying property.
The Federal Court allowed judicial review of a CERB ineligibility decision, finding the CRA agent failed to engage with gross-versus-net income and summer employment arguments.
The lump-sum payment comprising $58,436 for lost wages and $10,708 interest constitutes a retirement allowance and interest includable in income in 2017 under the Income Tax Act; consequently, for Old Age Security/GIS purposes the income for 2017 includes these amounts and the Tax Court/Cour canadienne de l'impôt did not err; the Federal Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to decide or harmonize tax or employment insurance consequences because the appellant only appealed under the Old Age Security Act; the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Tax Court dismissed an appeal for Canada Child Benefit eligibility, holding the appellant was not a protected person under IRPA and rejecting a Charter challenge.
The Supreme Court held that a stay of criminal proceedings does not end all forfeiture jurisdiction. Trial-linked provisions did not apply, but s. 490(9) could still govern disposition of seized property.
The Court of Appeal struck down Daniel Hartman’s negligence and misfeasance claims over Canada’s approval and promotion of the COVID-19 vaccine and dismissed the appeal.
The Federal Court set aside an Immigration Division inadmissibility decision, holding it unreasonably failed to consider non-refoulement when interpreting IRPA ss. 34(1)(b) and (f).
The Court dismissed both the appeal and cross‑appeal because the central questions identified by the parties were predominantly mixed questions of fact and law arising from the arbitrator's factual findings and application of legal tests; the arbitrator reasonably concluded the PHO Order did not apply to the respondent given his unique factual arrangement and did not err in law in his interpretation; the cross‑appellant failed to identify an extricable question of law arising from the remedy award.
Source excerpt
Explore more
