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 Tribunal granted Air Canada’s motion to strike retaliation allegations from the SOP, holding they were outside the scope of the complaint referred by the Commission.
The Tribunal struck the Union’s Notice of Constitutional Question, holding the Charter challenge to Income Tax Regulations was not necessary to decide the discrimination case.
The Tribunal dismissed Mr. Chow’s disclosure motion, holding TD had no further investigation documents to produce and the seven Guide resources were not arguably relevant.
The Tribunal found SRFN’s PCDs were a service under s. 5 CHRA and that denying them to the complainants was discriminatory on family status and age grounds.
The Tribunal denied the union’s request to hold the complaint in abeyance pending judicial review in Sidhu & Kopeck, finding the delay and prejudice to the complainant outweighed any benefit.
Le Tribunal a rejeté la plupart des allégations de discrimination de la Succession d’Edward Peters, mais a retenu une représaille liée au refus de trois paiements de 3 000 $.
The Tribunal struck the Complainant’s SOP as broader than the Commission referral and ordered an amended SOP limited to the referred hiring discrimination issues.
The Tribunal granted a confidentiality order for medical records filed by Robert Kopeck and dismissed the Union’s motion to stay proceedings pending judicial review.
The appeal is dismissed because the Federal Court correctly applied reasonableness to the Manager’s Second IF Decision, which meaningfully addressed the appellant’s adverse-impact age discrimination claim, was procedurally fair, did not require remittal to a senior official, and did not require an explicit section 15 Charter analysis given the Manager’s inquiry into disproportionate impact and available evidence.
Source excerpt
The amended notice failed to meet section 1(1) of the Regulations, 2022 because, although the challenged provision and material facts were identified, the notice omitted the required submissions on the second step of the s.15 test (how the exclusion reinforces, perpetuates or exacerbates disadvantage), meaning the summary legal argument lacks a reasonable chance of success; therefore the constitutional notice is refused and the appeal proceeds under the regular process.
Source excerpt
Explore more
