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 dismissed a specific performance claim over rural property after finding the contract terminated when buyer conditions were not removed by the deadline.
The Lift Stay Order is procedural, does not directly put debtor property into play and does not directly result in a loss under s.193(c) of the BIA; therefore the appellant has no automatic right of appeal. The appellant also fails to obtain leave under s.193(e) because the proposed appeal is not prima facie meritorious, does not raise issues of general importance, and would unduly hinder insolvency proceedings; accordingly leave is denied and the motion dismissed.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed summary judgment and security for costs applications in a video-game dispute, finding triable issues about termination of the Archer agreement.
The court found no genuine issue of material fact: Guildfords perfected its builders lien and the statutory scheme requires the owner's holdback be available to satisfy subcontractor liens; the legal issues raised by Queen's Marque were either not material to the claim or did not present a real chance of success, so summary judgment was appropriate and Queen's Marque was ordered to pay Guildfords $815,206.04 plus interest and costs.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to prove a veritable break in employment (he accepted a new contract with the same employer before the prior contract ended and there were continuous linkages), his temporary teaching was regular rather than predominantly casual or substitute, and he lacked sufficient insurable hours in other employment; therefore no exception to s.33 disentitlement applies for the July–September 2023 non-teaching period.
Source excerpt
On the facts the Vendor lacked cause to terminate: construction was complete so Clause 11 did not apply; Mary’s entries were justifiable and de minimis and Provident had effectively affirmed/waived any complaint by not acting until the pre-closing inspection; consequently Provident breached the Agreement and specific performance was appropriate because the Unit had particular value to Mary and damages would be inadequate; the court ordered specific performance and awarded special damages of $360 plus costs submissions.
Source excerpt
The General Division did not err: the claimant made a personal, deliberate choice not to comply with the employer's COVID‑19 vaccination policy, that wilful refusal constituted misconduct under the EI Act, and that misconduct directly caused the dismissal; issues of contractual breach, ROE characterization, accommodation and human or constitutional rights are for other fora and do not vitiate the misconduct finding.
Source excerpt
The court granted summary-trial judgment for the plaintiff, holding a bitcoin-hosting supplement was a valid liquidated damages clause and ordering damages, interest, and costs.
The court held the monitor had affirmed the contracts, could terminate the credit facility, validly assessed margin after default, and recovered CA$232,700 plus interest.
The court held GC 6.5.10 was a no-fault termination clause, awarded Centura payment for completed work less a deficiency setoff, and dismissed interference and abuse of process claims.
Explore more
