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 reconsidered costs after a trespass to chattels judgment and held the plaintiffs recovered within Provincial Court jurisdiction, so they got disbursements only.
The application for an interim injunction was dismissed because the applicant failed to show a serious issue to be tried and clear, non‑speculative irreparable harm under the RJR‑MacDonald test; the proposed order was overly broad, raised unresolved s.35 Aboriginal rights and Crown duty to consult issues implicating DFO, and required more complete adjudication with Crown participation rather than extraordinary ex parte relief.
Source excerpt
Because the pleadings contained no allegation of bad faith and s.9 of the Law Society Act immunizes the Law Society from civil claims for acts done in good faith in performance of its statutory duties, the claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action and the motion judge correctly struck the pleadings and properly refused leave to amend as futile.
Source excerpt
La Cour suprême de la Colombie-Britannique a accordé une injonction interlocutoire à Marine Harvest pour empêcher l’occupation et l’entrave à son site aquacole de Midsummer.
The court held the City’s removal and disposal of nuisance property was authorized by the Community Charter, defeating claims in tort against the City and the bylaw officer.
The court held Century 21’s website terms bound Zoocasa, rejected fair dealing, found copyright infringement, and refused liability against Rogers on the facts.
The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial because the trial judge’s reasons for preferring one survey expert over another were too sparse to permit appellate review.
The defendant was not legally at fault because the injury was an unforeseeable freak accident from conduct taken reflexively to prevent harm, and there was an implied social consent to reasonable handling of the pet; therefore no negligence or intentional tort was established and no liability for veterinary costs arose.
Source excerpt
The adjudicator erred in law by failing to determine which party had the immediate right to possession (ownership) of the truck — a necessary finding where no bailment on terms was alleged — and the court's and adjudicator's significant delays in transmitting the report breached procedural fairness; accordingly the adjudicator's order was set aside and a rehearing before another adjudicator was directed.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed North King’s appeal and allowed Carter’s cross-appeal in a dispute over a vessel damaged after boom sticks were removed.
Explore more
