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 dismissed Tehama Group Inc.’s appeal from the dismissal of its application to set aside an arbitral award under the UNCITRAL Model Law.
Leave to appeal refused because the Appeal Division found no arguable reviewable error: the General Division applied the correct legal tests, conducted a fair hearing (interpreter present, opportunity to present evidence), reasonably found the applicant was outside Canada without fitting statutory exceptions and failed to prove availability for work; therefore there is no reasonable chance of success on appeal.
Source excerpt
Leave to appeal was refused because the Employer failed to identify any arguable reviewable error and did not demonstrate a direct interest—the General Division properly exercised its discretion in refusing to add the Employer as a party.
Source excerpt
The Appeal Division allowed the appeal because the General Division accepted voluntariness without properly addressing the claimant's disputed evidence and relied on unsupported presumptions about the criminal justice system; that reliance gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and breached natural justice, requiring the matter be returned to the General Division for reconsideration by a different member.
Source excerpt
Leave to appeal was refused because the Applicant produced no new evidence and failed to show an arguable legal or factual error or procedural unfairness by the General Division; the General Division correctly applied binding precedent requiring medical evidence during the CPP coverage period.
Source excerpt
Permission to appeal refused because the claimant produced no new evidence from the relevant qualifying period and failed to raise an arguable case that the General Division made a legal, factual, mixed or natural justice error; additionally, compassionate grounds are not a jurisdictional basis to grant a pension by the Appeal Division.
Source excerpt
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to raise an arguable case that the General Division made a jurisdictional, legal, factual or procedural error, presented no new evidence, and the General Division correctly applied the statutory one‑year limitation which it could not extend.
Source excerpt
Contrôle judiciaire d’un refus de réexaminer une demande d’ERAR rejeté : la Cour fédérale conclut que la décision était raisonnable.
Permission to appeal was refused because the General Division correctly applied the EI Act by extending the qualifying period to the statutory maximum, accepted the Applicant's chronic condition, and properly determined the Applicant had zero insurable hours within that extended period so there is no arguable error of law, reviewable error of fact, or denial of natural justice that would give the appeal a reasonable chance of success.
Source excerpt
Permission to appeal was refused because the Applicant did not establish an arguable ground: the General Division afforded a fair process, applied the correct legal test, and there was no jurisdictional error, error of law, or perverse factual finding that would allow the Appeal Division to intervene.
Source excerpt
Explore more
