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 struck a negligence claim over a dam, holding Waterway Houseboats foreclosed any private duty of care to the plaintiffs on the pleaded facts.
Judicial review of an OIPC s. 43 order was allowed because affected family members received no proper notice, and the remedy was also found overbroad.
Documents that are not HRM documents (Provincial Panel files) are not compelled from HRM and should be sought from the Province via FOI; HRM must comply with the existing Production Order to produce specified categories (including the Stantec Future Serviced Communities Background Studies) up to the motion cutoff date; limited further productions were ordered (confirmation whether Annapolis lands appear in the Highway 102 West Corridor map and production of growth projections shared with Halifax Water and Halifax Transit 2015-present); exhaustive searches for historic texts/Teams/messages acr…
Source excerpt
The court held that FIPPA s. 25 can require disclosure of solicitor-client privileged records and that s. 44 allows the Commissioner to compel production for inquiry.
The Court held HRM satisfied the statutory duty to assist by making every reasonable effort to locate responsive records; the redactions and withholdings were authorized: solicitor-client privilege applied to the withheld legal communications (s.476), third-party personal information redactions were required because disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy (s.480), and non-responsive and duplicate records were properly withheld; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Part XX of the Municipal Government Act governs; uncontradicted evidence established the interview questions and associated scoring prompts remain in a reuse pool and are likely to be used again; therefore they fall within the s.463(2)(d) exemption for questions to be used on an examination or test and are not subject to disclosure under Part XX; appeal dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court struck Guido Amsel’s judicial review application because it concerned a provincial FIPPA decision outside the Court’s jurisdiction.
The court dismissed an appeal seeking unredacted public health records, holding s. 91 of the Public Health Act bars compelled disclosure of personal information in civil proceedings.
The court held that a one-page record of interim legal costs was presumptively privileged and that the presumption was not rebutted in this ongoing litigation.
The court dismissed a petition to convert a judicial review into an action, and refused broader discovery and non-party examinations in a towing contract dispute.
Explore more
