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 Tribunal granted the motion because counsel for the respondents agreed to act for and accept service for Six Flags, the parties confirmed no impact on the Scheduling Order, and the amendment was in the interest of justice, so allowing the amendment caused no prejudice.
Source excerpt
The application to add Mixtec as a defendant is dismissed because the proposed amended pleadings fail to particularize the necessary elements of knowing assistance and knowing receipt and lack specific allegations against Mixtec for any conspiracy; the deficiencies render the claims destined to fail and amendment is refused with liberty to reapply on a revised pleading addressing specificity and necessary elements.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed the request to add Arjinder Kaur as a defendant, removed Jane Doe from the style of cause, and ordered limited discovery responses.
The Tribunal dismissed the Conseil de la Nation Wendat’s motions to join a human rights complaint or continue it if the original complainant withdraws.
The court allowed a chambers appeal and added CMI Concierge & Security Inc. as a defendant in a slip-and-fall action, despite expiry of the limitation period.
Appeal dismissed: the court upheld joinder of three band members as plaintiffs and preserved any limitation defences only up to the original filing date.
The appeals were dismissed because the Federal Court correctly exercised its discretion under the Federal Courts Rules in removing the Speaker of the Senate and His Majesty the King as parties: neither was a proper or necessary party to the OLA s.77 applications, the OLA authorizes remedies only against federal institutions (which do not include the monarch or the Speaker personally and does not treat Parliament itself as an 'institution of Parliament'), and issue estoppel did not apply since the issues were not previously and definitively determined between the same parties.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed a motion to add the claimant’s son and two corporations as counterclaim respondents, finding the pleadings and evidence too thin to justify joinder at this stage.
Court refused to strike or dismiss a will challenge alleging undue influence, and allowed a former beneficiary to be added as a defendant before trial.
The court held that a prior consent order made the court functus officio on election and membership-list issues, dismissed joinder and audit applications, and adjourned cross-examination.
Explore more
