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 Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Brandon Aubin’s appeal, finding no prejudice from trial counsel’s failure to retain an expert on fire origin.
The appeal is dismissed: the Federal Court correctly found that the word element 'THERME' dominates the composite THERME WOMAN marks for 'when sounded' analysis and those marks are clearly descriptive in French of specified services; THERME (and the WOMAN marks) are deceptively misdescriptive in French for certain services; THERME and THERME GROUP are confusing in English with Nordik's THERMËA registrations; and the Poplack affidavit was properly excluded as unnecessary expert evidence.
Source excerpt
The Crown's proposed expert evidence from Dr. Coyne was inadmissible because it was not logically relevant to any fact in issue in the indictment—general evidence about Fox Hunt/Sky Net, untethered to the accused's specific conduct or the specific target, did not tend to prove the elements the Crown must establish; alternatively, any marginal probative value would be overborne by prejudicial effect and risk of distracting the jury.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal held that Dr. Strathearn’s initial witness statement is admissible as factual evidence but his reply witness statement, which contained expert opinion beyond factual scope, is inadmissible and struck; the Tribunal granted Rogers leave to file a brief sur-reply expert report from Dr. Feamster limited to five pages addressing Mr. Lee’s testing protocol and results and awarded costs to Rogers.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court refused certification of a proposed generic-drugs class action, finding no reasonable cause of action, no basis in fact for common issues, and an inadequate litigation plan.
The Tribunal admitted most of a proposed expert report on domestic and intimate partner violence, but redacted the section on K.L.’s circumstances as improper fact-finding.
Court of Appeal dismissed a family law appeal and cross-appeal arising from a summary trial on property, spousal support, and costs.
Costs reasons after dismissal of a trip-and-fall claim: the defendant received Scale B costs and double costs from January 22, 2024, after a reasonable offer to settle was not accepted.
The court found the plaintiff was not a reliable historian, rejected most plaintiff experts on causation, accepted only ongoing pain symptoms, and awarded $182,930.80.
The charge on modes of participation was constitutionally defective: the s.21(2) instruction left the jury potentially confused about whether common unlawful purpose could ground first‑degree murder and the aiding instruction failed to explain the necessary intention and knowledge for an aider, producing a real risk of convicting without understanding requisite mens rea; accordingly convictions were set aside and a new trial ordered.
Source excerpt
Explore more
