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 of Appeal dismissed an application to vary a costs order made on an extension-of-time motion, holding indigency did not bar costs and no factual error was shown.
The court dismissed an application to compel transcript funding for an appeal, finding the issue barred by res judicata and unsupported on the facts, but allowed the appellant’s own transcription to be used.
Appeal dismissed from a master’s refusal to waive court fees for a petition seeking to re-argue family and protection matters under Rule 20-5.
The Court of Appeal dismissed a review of the Registrar’s costs assessment and a Rule 56 no-fee application, holding there was no basis to interfere and no-fee relief was inappropriate.
The court dismissed Mr. Paquette’s Rowbotham application, finding he had not shown a real risk of unfair trial without counsel or proven financial indigency.
La Cour suprême de la Colombie-Britannique rejette une demande Rowbotham dans une affaire d’extradition, estimant que le demandeur n’a pas démontré son indigence.
The Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissed a motion for security for costs, finding the appeal had arguable merit and security would likely stop it.
The Court of Appeal dismissed an application to vary a chambers order refusing to reactivate an inactive appeal, holding there was no error in principle, law, or fact.
The Court of Appeal dismissed a personal injury appeal as abandoned, citing inordinate delay, failure to comply with transcript orders, and inadequate explanation for the delay.
Court found that given the volume and complexity of evidence, serious and technical nature of charges (including rare s.380(2) market manipulation and conspiracy), expected trial length (4–6 months), likely imprisonment exposure, and the applicant’s lack of criminal trial experience, representation by counsel was essential. The court further found Clarke had exhausted reasonable avenues to obtain counsel and, in the context of this lengthy complex trial, lacked means to retain counsel. Therefore a conditional stay under s.24(1) Charter until state-funded counsel is appointed was appropriate.
Source excerpt
Explore more
