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 Federal Court dismissed a judicial review of a CRA staffing recourse decision, finding the Individual Feedback process fair and the ineligibility ruling reasonable.
Judicial review of a refused work permit was dismissed. The Court found the officer’s IRPR 205(a) analysis reasonable and no procedural unfairness or bias.
The Federal Court dismissed Rainy River First Nations’ judicial review of an unjust dismissal ruling, finding no material evidence of bias and no procedural unfairness.
The Federal Court dismissed a motion to stay an Investment Canada Act remedial order requiring China Mobile’s Canadian subsidiary to be divested or wound up.
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a PSC decision finding no fraud in a public service appointment process after allegations that an exam had been altered.
Leave to appeal was refused because the Applicants failed to put forward any arguable ground that the General Division erred in law or fact; the General Division reasonably weighed the evidence and correctly applied the OAS Act, OAS Regulations and the Canada‑US Agreement; allegations of bias were unsupported; and new evidence raised at the leave stage could not establish an arguable case.
Source excerpt
The Court refused CFPA and COFI leave to intervene in a statutory appeal, finding no direct interest and no useful new perspective beyond Western Forest Products.
The RAD concluded the RPD's negative credibility finding based on multiple documents the RPD reasonably concluded were fraudulent was within the range of acceptable outcomes; the new documents submitted on appeal failed the statutory fresh-evidence test or were immaterial, the bias allegation lacked evidentiary foundation, and deference is owed to the RPD on findings of fact and credibility, so the RPD decision denying refugee protection was confirmed.
Source excerpt
The motion for an extension of time is dismissed because, although the applicant demonstrated a continuing intention to seek review, he provided no reasonable excuse for the lengthy delay and his proposed grounds are largely merits complaints not cognizable on judicial review; the procedural fairness allegations (bias and insufficient reasons) were baseless and there were no compelling circumstances to warrant extension.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal because the trial judge’s findings that the child remained in need of protection and that Crown wardship without access for adoption was in the child’s best interests were open on the record, the appeal judge properly applied the deferential standard of review in child protection matters, there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, no proven misconduct by the CAS, and the admission/exclusion of fresh evidence was correctly exercised under the CFSA and applicable precedent.
Source excerpt
Explore more
