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 Ontario Court of Appeal set aside summary judgment in a greenhouse insurance dispute, holding the motion judge misapplied causation analysis and failed to resolve key factual issues.
The Supreme Court held that a compliance cost exclusion applied despite a guaranteed rebuilding cost endorsement, limiting recovery to the policy’s exception.
Because the NSHA's complaints process as applied to these privileged physicians had significant potential to affect their ability to practice, a high degree of procedural fairness was required; the NSHA exceeded Policy discretion by involving Medical Affairs/ZMED, failed to provide adequate disclosure and an opportunity to be heard on findings and sanctions, and thereby breached the applicants' duty of procedural fairness; the Decisions dated May 1, 2023 are quashed and the parties are to agree or submit on an appropriate remedial process and costs.
Source excerpt
The Employer failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the Claimant lost her job because of misconduct: the June 4, 2024 policy required management authorization for price changes, the Claimant obtained prior approval from her manager and reasonably believed the conduct was permitted, and the policy did not communicate dismissal as an available sanction; therefore the conduct was not misconduct for EI purposes and the Claimant is not disqualified from benefits.
Source excerpt
The Commission failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant's conduct was wilful or so reckless as to constitute misconduct under the EI Act; contextual factors (10-minute isolated interaction, workplace culture tolerating personal conversations, absence of contemporaneous objections or training, Appellant's credible explanation of lack of sexual intent and operational reasons for remarks) show the conduct was not of a nature that the Appellant knew or ought to have known could lead to dismissal, therefore the Appellant is not disqualified from EI benefits.
Source excerpt
The Court dismissed the Union's appeal, agreeing with the Divisional Court that the Arbitrator's award was unreasonable because he failed to apply the statutory investigative duty under the OHSA, unreasonably minimized the manifestation of harm in the workplace, and erred about the investigator's authority to obtain WhatsApp evidence; the arbitration award was quashed and the matter remitted to the Grievance Settlement Board for appointment of a different arbitrator to determine the matter in accordance with these reasons.
Source excerpt
Section 1.6(a)(ii) of the standard 44R endorsement, properly interpreted, creates a single ownership exclusion (occupant of another automobile who leases or owns that automobile) that is qualified by the following clause: coverage is nevertheless available if family protection coverage is in force in respect of the other automobile; therefore Ashley was an "insured person" under Joe's 44R. Consequently Joe's 44R (Kent) is first loss for his excess damages under s.18(a)(ii) because the policy is in his name; for the other plaintiffs excess damages beyond the $200,000 uninsured motorist coverag…
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and held Continental had a duty to defend Deasan in a landslide lawsuit, finding the broker bound the insurer and notice of changed risk was effective.
The Appeal Division found the General Division erred in law by treating claimant financial hardship as a relevant factor and by misinterpreting the Commission's reconsideration policy; applying controlling FCA authority and the Commission's policy, the Tribunal held the Commission exercised its discretion judicially under s.52 and properly reduced entitlement to 31 weeks based on CRA insurability findings, resulting in a valid overpayment recovery obligation.
Source excerpt
Judicial review of a refusal to reconsider a permanent residence application under the Temporary Resident to Permanent Resident policy was dismissed as reasonable.
Explore more
