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
s.2(3) of the Wildlife Act must be satisfied by actual compliance with the Act and regulations to acquire property in wildlife; a due diligence defence cannot substitute for compliance, and convictions resulting from paying violation tickets are proof of non-compliance; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the province retains the hide and antlers.
Source excerpt
The court allowed Mr. Do’s appeal, finding the provincial trial unfair and the convictions unreasonable. The convictions were quashed and acquittals entered on all counts.
Appeal from a Wildlife Act conviction was allowed in part after the court found the trial judge misread the regulatory definition of full curl sheep.
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s appeal because the Tax Court’s findings that the reassessments were not statute barred, that the taxpayer’s nondisclosures amounted to at least negligence or wilful blindness, and that gross negligence and T1135 penalties applied were supported by the agreed facts and not tainted by palpable and overriding error; the Crown was not required to call the taxpayer and costs of $3,300 were awarded to the respondent.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed CN’s judicial review, upholding a TATC appeal decision that found CN had not proved due diligence for railway safety violations.
The Tax Court held that a due diligence defence is available under s. 162(7), but Sherry Laurie was not duly diligent in failing to file T1135 forms for 2019 and 2020.
The Federal Court dismissed BGIS’s judicial review, upholding environmental AMP notices and rejecting arguments based on impossibility, Charter s. 11(d), and s. 7.
Leave to appeal was granted on three issues because the proper identification of the actus reus for worker offences under the OHSA, the proper approach to concurrent/overlapping responsibilities, and the role of private contracts in defining assigned responsibilities raise novel and significant questions of law that affect public interest and the administration of justice; leave was denied on the due diligence/foreseeability ground because the appeal judge correctly analysed that law and no injustice flowed from the trial judge's reasoning.
Source excerpt
On the facts the appellant and Jones acted in concert and shared a common intent to extract corporate retained earnings by way of dividend while corporate tax arrears existed, so s.160 applies and the s.160 assessments are upheld; regarding 227 the T4s/T4 summary establish that amounts were deducted/withheld and thus were held in trust and the appellant, as a director, is jointly and severally liable under s.227.1 because he failed to exercise the required supervisory due diligence.
Source excerpt
Leave to appeal was denied because the Crown failed to establish the high threshold for s.131 leave: the issues advanced were fact driven or mixed fact and law rather than pure questions of law, the POAC applied established legal principles (including the factors from Martin J. in Greater Sudbury) and there was no demonstrable legal error of sufficient public importance to justify this Court's intervention.
Source excerpt
Explore more
