Canada Case Law

TN v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

On the evidentiary record the employer's version was more probable, the claimant lacked sufficient leave hours, the employer's withdrawal of approval was reasonable, and the claimant acted wilfully and knowingly in taking unapproved leave; these facts satisfy the three-part misconduct test and justify dismissal for misconduct, so the Appeal Division must dismiss the appeal.

Source excerpt

• Misconduct
• Disqualification from benefits
• Standard of review
• Appeal scope

Read case analysis

Lauzon v. Ontario (Justices of the Peace Review Council)

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court declined to interfere with the Hearing Panel's costs recommendation because the costs issue was not before the Court (appellant did not seek leave to appeal it), and the appellant failed to demonstrate reversible error or that her partial success altered the reasonableness of the costs recommendation.

Source excerpt

• Costs
• Judicial discipline
• Appeal scope
• Remedies

Read case analysis

K.M.P. v. A.E.J.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held it lacked jurisdiction to hear a parenting-order variation or review after the matter had already been dealt with through the Provincial Court and appeal process.

• Parenting arrangements
• Variation of orders
• Jurisdictional allocation between supreme court and provincial court
• Judicial comity
• Appeal scope
• Family-law

Read case analysis

CM v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The General Division correctly applied the summary dismissal test because the record, including the CRA’s insurability ruling of 699 hours versus the 700‑hour threshold, made it plain and obvious the appeal was bound to fail and the claimant did not appeal the CRA ruling; accordingly the appeal was properly dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Insurable hours
• Summary dismissal
• Jurisdiction of cra determinations
• Appeal scope

Read case analysis

N. I. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The Appeal is dismissed because the General Division did not breach natural justice and did not err in law: the vacation pay constituted earnings under s.35(2) and was properly allocated under s.36(9) as paid on separation, and the appellant failed to raise or provide evidence for the unpaid-vacation-days allocation before the General Division so the Appeal Division could not consider it.

Source excerpt

• Vacation pay allocation
• Earnings allocation
• Procedural fairness
• Appeal scope
• Ei regulations s.35(2) and s.36(9)

Read case analysis

Estphanous v. McLeod and Stirling

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court declined to instruct the jury on an appropriate range of non-pecuniary damages, finding such an instruction would intrude on the jury’s role and complicate deliberations.

• Non-pecuniary damages
• Range of damages
• Jury directions
• Appeal scope
• Role of jury vs judge
• Jury-instructions

Read case analysis

R. v. Gellvear

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

La Cour suprême a accueilli la motion de la Couronne pour radier des paragraphes du factum, puis a rejeté l’appel, faute de question de droit valablement soumise.

• Appeal scope
• Striking pleadings/factum
• Leave to appeal
• Procedural default
• Criminal-law
• Appellate-procedure

Read case analysis