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 motion seeking clarification of earlier reasons, holding the Court was functus officio and that the Rules do not provide a free-standing clarification remedy.
The addendum holds that the phrase "outstanding costs orders" includes both the costs orders made by Roberts J.A. and those made by the three-judge panel; it specifies the total amounts owing and orders the responding parties to pay $19,000 to Bluekat Capital Corp. and $12,780 to Harsha Rathod by August 28, 2024.
Source excerpt
Supplemental reasons clarifying a damages award for future loss of income earning capacity, correcting the award to a gross annual figure and recalculating the total amount.
Costs ruling after a construction dispute. The court held the Parmars were substantially successful, corrected the judgment amounts, and denied Can-West and Ranauta their costs claims.
The Court of Appeal quashed an appeal from a clarification dismissal, finding it was a collateral attack on a final family law decision and an abuse of process.
The court corrected the respondent’s excluded property to $140,000, but refused to reopen the trial or change the asset division.
The Court declined to entertain Equitable Life's new argument at the clarification stage, affirmed that Mr. Dawe is entitled to pro rata damages for bonus payments to the end of the notice period as determined by the motion judge and this court, and awarded the respondent costs of the appeal in the amount of $25,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements.
Source excerpt
The court refused to change the March 1, 2017 order: the original adjudicator did not intend to award money for items left on the premises, tenants should have sought clarification at the time rather than unilaterally withholding funds, and therefore the attempted deduction of $348.74 is not authorized; the March 1, 2017 order stands and the current adjudicator will not alter it or opine on the Sheriff's enforcement actions.
Source excerpt
The court declined to clarify its earlier extradition reasons and refused to answer a hypothetical disclosure question without a proper application, law, or evidence.
The court refused to issue substantive supplementary reasons because it was not appropriate to do so given the applicant's indication that it might appeal; instead the court added a single clarifying sentence to paragraph 24 noting that it was unnecessary to decide the issue in the absence of a Mortgage Amending Agreement.
Source excerpt
Explore more
