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 quashed the appeal for repeated non-compliance with support and parenting orders, awarding $20,000 full-indemnity costs.
The Court held the motion judge did not err in principle, did not misapprehend material evidence, and did not reach an unreasonable result; accordingly there was no basis to interfere and the appellant's motion was dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Court granted the stay because the appeal raised a serious issue (the propriety of removing and replacing trustees appointed by a deceased over entities with significant interrelated assets), the Entities would suffer irreparable, non‑quantifiable harm absent a stay, and the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo pending appeal; the automatic stay of the earlier costs order remains in place and the Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal on the final trustee removal/replacement orders, so the motion to quash or stay the appeal was dismissed.
Source excerpt
The motion to set aside MacFarland J.A.'s order and to stay subsequent case management orders is dismissed because the post‑January 3, 2018 orders are interlocutory and appealable to the Divisional Court with leave, MacFarland J.A. did not misapprehend evidence or err in principle, and her exercise of discretion on costs was within bounds.
Source excerpt
Leave to appeal was granted from a post-trial order requiring a $300,000 deposit pending assessment of special costs, with conditions imposed on the appeal.
The Court of Appeal directed review of a prior order dismissing a stay application concerning two driving prohibition orders, applying the s. 680(1) threshold.
The application to consolidate was granted, but the application for a stay was dismissed because the Court lacked jurisdiction to stay the October 24, 2003 order in the absence of an appeal and because the appellants failed to prove irreparable harm with adequate evidence in respect of the October 9, 2003 order; accordingly costs were awarded to the respondents.
Source excerpt
The court ordered reconsideration of a Residential Tenancy Act review decision after finding the arbitrator may have failed to consider changed circumstances and new evidence.
Explore more
