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 court reviewed a contingency fee bill under the Legal Profession Act, found the retainer clause ambiguous, rejected the claimed contingent fee, and allowed a reduced fair fee.
The Claimant is entitled to commissions on all commercial accounts of the named defendants (Andy’s, A-1, Scotia) during the employment period; separate legal entities acquired during the period are not captured absent evidence they are the same legal persons; because the Defendants possess the necessary financial information and did not produce it, an accounting is ordered under Rules 66.03 and 66.04 to determine quantum, with specific timelines and dispute procedures; claimant awarded filing and service costs.
Source excerpt
The court found no express contractual authority to pass increased lumber costs not covered by Schedule B to the Claimants, construed any ambiguity against the drafter, and held the Claimants signed Schedule E under illegitimate pressure amounting to economic duress; items for trusses and lumber in Schedule E are void and the Claimants are entitled to recovery and damages.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court held that monthly allowances can be included in SISIP LTD calculations, but only those paid on a monthly basis.
The court held ss.206 and 209 of the Insurance Act apply to disability claims (disability is within life insurance definitions), the March 2012 denial (resent March 26, 2012) was a clear and unequivocal denial triggering the one‑year limitation under the Policy and s.209, the New Limitations Act transition does not extend the limitation because s.209 constituted the "former limitation period," s.19 incapacity and equitable doctrines do not save the claim, and therefore the 2015 action was statute barred; summary judgment dismissing all claims is required.
Source excerpt
The court held that the loan, guarantee, and liquidated damages clauses in the parties’ agreement were binding and enforceable, granting judgment for the plaintiff.
The Construction Agreement, its express clause requiring written change orders for extras and the objective interpretation of allowances governed the outcome; where the contract was ambiguous the ambiguity was resolved against the drafting builder (contra proferentum). Consequently most claimed extras lacking written change orders or proof were disallowed, certain extras and some defendant counterclaims were allowed, and the parties' settlement payment was credited resulting in a net judgment of CAD 4,541.67 in favour of the defendants (Goughs).
Source excerpt
The notation on the Lot Inspection was clear and unambiguous: unfinished items were to be completed by June 15, 2016 and would become the purchaser's responsibility only if not completed by that date; the siding work was completed before June 15, 2016, therefore the tenant had no liability; alternatively, any ambiguity would be construed against the landlord (drafter). The appeal is dismissed on that basis.
Source excerpt
The court held that Lloyd's had a duty to defend insureds in a Washington unfair competition action because the complaint alleged advertising-related misconduct within CGL advertising liability coverage.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed Gescan’s appeal, holding the credit application clearly made Behroozi jointly and severally liable as a co-covenantor.
Explore more
