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
Application for post-judgment document production and an examination order was granted in part: narrowed production was ordered from Donald, and Leslie was ordered to attend for examination.
The court dismissed Emco’s application to remove this constructive dismissal action from fast track, finding a rational possibility of a three-day trial.
The court struck the defendant’s blanket response to a notice to admit, finding it noncompliant and frivolous, and allowed the notice to be converted into interrogatories.
The Court of Appeal held that a document production order made during PPPA cross-examination on affidavits was made under Rule 22-1(4)(c), so leave to appeal was not required.
The court dismissed the defendant’s summary judgment application and granted the Director’s document production request in part in a civil forfeiture case.
Court of Appeal upheld most of a defamation judgment, reduced aggravated damages, and narrowed a permanent injunction against online publication.
The court partly granted a production application in a motor vehicle injury case, limiting most medical and employment disclosure to two years before the accident.
The Federal Court allowed Apotex to amend its defence in part, permitting paragraphs 176–182 but striking paragraphs 183–192 as improper or speculative.
Majority affirmed liability for defamation, rejected defendant's defences, held the apology ineffective, allowed the appeal in part by setting aside special damages ($11,654) and aggravated damages ($5,000) but affirmed general damages of $7,000 and ordered solicitor-and-client costs in favour of respondent; no new trial warranted.
Source excerpt
The court exercised its discretion under Rule 53 and its case management authority to end further discovery because extensive prior discovery had occurred, the marginal value of additional documents was insufficient to justify further delay, and no reasonable prospect existed that pending appellate decisions required postponement. Consequently the Appellant's motion for further disclosure was dismissed and the matter was set for trial to resolve substantive issues including whether the donations constituted gifts or engaged GAAR.
Source excerpt
Explore more
