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 for Ontario denied David Robinson’s motion to waive transcript requirements for his summary conviction appeals and dismissed related relief as not properly before the court.
The Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissed an application to appoint counsel under s. 684 of the Criminal Code because the proposed appeal lacked merit.
The mother was entirely successful; the father's unproven sexual abuse allegation materially complicated the proceeding and increased time and expense; tariffs were not an appropriate measure for non-monetary parenting issues; therefore a lump sum costs award of $2,500 inclusive to the Nova Scotia Legal Aid Commission on behalf of the mother is justified given the absence of detailed fee submissions and the public cost of legal aid.
Source excerpt
Application for state-funded counsel dismissed because there is no constitutional or legislative basis to order appointment in private civil litigation, the Rule 40 factors do not justify appointment (issues not legally complex, appellant capable of self-representation, insufficient evidence of financial hardship), and appointment is an exceptional remedy reserved primarily for state-involved or criminal matters.
Source excerpt
The court granted public interest standing to the Single Mothers' Alliance in a constitutional challenge to BC family law legal aid, but refused special costs.
SS was entirely successful and $7,000 under Tariff C is reasonable; because s.23(5) of the Nova Scotia Legal Aid Act makes costs awarded to a Legal Aid client the property of the Commission, the appropriate order is that JG pay $7,000 to the Nova Scotia Legal Aid Commission.
Source excerpt
Although the applicant lacked financial means and was refused Legal Aid, the Court concluded the potential issues on appeal were not sufficiently legally complex or clearly serious and that the appellant could adequately present the factual and credibility arguments himself from the transcript; therefore it was not desirable in the interests of justice to assign counsel and the application was dismissed.
Source excerpt
The RPD's decision was correct: the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the harms were linked to his political opinion or that the Georgian state would likely be unable to provide adequate protection; credibility concerns and unexplained delay further undermine the claim; the post‑RPD Legal Aid Ontario refusal was admissible but not determinative and did not establish procedural unfairness; therefore the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Source excerpt
Leave to appeal was denied because the appellants failed to show that their proposed defences were factually and legally relevant or that the regulatory charges were sufficiently serious or complex to require state-funded counsel under the Rowbotham framework; the SCAC correctly applied the governing principles and Pottie leave standards.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the Appellant failed to meet the threshold to show former counsel were incompetent with sufficiently clear and specific evidence, and therefore did not establish a breach of procedural fairness; independently, the RPD's adverse credibility finding was supported by multiple material inconsistencies between the BOC, POE forms and testimony, and was therefore correct; limited new evidence (complaint documentation) was admitted but did not raise a serious credibility question to alter the outcome, so remittal or an oral hearing was not warranted.
Source excerpt
Explore more
