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
Motion to strike granted in a First Nations election challenge for failure to comply with statutory standing and service requirements; late affidavits were inadmissible.
The Federal Court allowed Louis Dreyfus Company to file and serve a reply expert report, finding it was responsive, not case-splitting, and not prejudicial.
The court refused to admit two documents in reply, finding both were available earlier and would improperly bolster evidence already led.
Court granted BLOK Technologies Inc.’s application to strike reply evidence in a securities leave petition, holding the rule against case splitting applies to s. 140.8 applications.
The Federal Court allowed Spin Master to file a reply expert report on accounting of profits, finding it did not amount to improper case splitting or unfair prejudice.
Employment claims for periodic unpaid wages give rise to a rolling cause of action so the Claimant could pursue amounts within the two-year discovery window; amounts prior to the limitation cutoff (pre-October 31, 2016) were statute-barred; quantum meruit applies for unpaid services with reasonable compensation measured at minimum wage, resulting in a monetary judgment of $15,550.49; the Claimant failed to prove ownership of the pony 'Clover', so no order for its delivery was made.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed a defence application to limit Crown cross-examination of witness C.K., holding the proposed questions did not amount to case splitting.
The court dismissed Chen’s negligent misrepresentation claim over a real estate listing, finding no proof of breach of standard of care and refusing to reopen the case.
The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial after finding error in excluding responsive rebuttal expert evidence on black ice formation and speed calculations.
The Federal Court ruled on whether plaintiffs could adduce expert reply evidence on infringement and invalidity, limiting reply evidence and excluding repetitive material.
Explore more
