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 Tax Court dismissed Paul Kane’s appeal from a 2009 reassessment, upholding a penalty under s. 163(2) of the Income Tax Act for wilful blindness to a fictitious business loss.
The Federal Court dismissed a judicial review of a work permit refusal and inadmissibility finding, holding the officer reasonably found misrepresentation on the record.
The Federal Court set aside a visa officer’s misrepresentation finding, holding the reasons did not explain how omitting prior U.S. visa refusals could induce an IRPA error.
The Court has jurisdiction to consider applications to amend leave applications after the s.60 30-day period, but must refuse amendments that are so significant they effectively constitute an application for extension of time; the proposed amendments here fundamentally reframed the appeal and therefore were dismissed as an impermissible extension of time.
Source excerpt
Motion to supplement the certified tribunal record in two TRV judicial reviews was dismissed, except for two GCMS notes added to the record.
The application for leave was dismissed because the petitioner failed to file/adduce admissible affidavits in this petition (cannot rely wholesale on affidavits filed in a separate proceeding), failed to provide sufficient credible evidence or properly pleaded material facts to satisfy the s.140.8 leave threshold, and most claims based on documents released before November 6, 2021 are statute-barred under s.140.94; consequently leave was denied and nunc pro tunc relief rejected.
Source excerpt
FACT succeeded in part on passing off over ASIALICIOUS. The Court found FACT had prior goodwill, rejected the defendants’ prior-use claim, and granted a narrow injunction and nominal damages.
The General Division correctly held that the Commission could rely on s.52(5) of the EI Act because the Commission could reasonably find a false or misleading statement had been made (contradictory claimant reports regarding receipt of wage‑loss indemnity), and the Commission exercised its discretion judicially in reconsidering and allocating the indemnity, so the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of an IAD decision upholding an exclusion order for misrepresentation and refusing H&C relief under s. 67(1)(c).
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review, holding the IAD reasonably found it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal where the spouse’s application was barred by misrepresentation rules.
Explore more
