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 Federal Court struck CILA’s judicial review application, holding it did not disclose a reviewable matter under s. 18.1 and that public interest standing was unavailable.
The Tribunal granted leave to file both the Tarlton responding affidavit and the Robles reply affidavit because each adduced specific, circumscribed factual evidence relevant to the s.103.1 leave-stage screening, the Robles material was directly responsive to ambiguous and potentially misleading statements in Tarlton, and no prejudice was shown.
Source excerpt
The Ontario Court of Appeal granted intervention motions in a class-action appeal about the Ragoonanan principle, imposing tight limits on factums, reply rights, and oral argument.
Coalition of Interested Advocates v. Nova Scotia (Judicial Council)
The court held that the Coalition raised serious justiciable issues about the scope and reasonableness of a Review Committee's exercise of authority under s.17G(b) to resolve very serious misconduct complaints and approve reprimands/remedial measures potentially reserved to the Judicial Council under s.17K; the Coalition demonstrated a genuine interest and that judicial review is a reasonable, efficient and effective means to adjudicate the statutory question. Public interest standing was therefore granted.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal adopts an adapted three-part public interest standing test for the public interest branch of subsection 103.1(7): (1) whether the proposed application raises a substantial and genuine competition law dispute under the specified provision; (2) whether the applicant has a genuine interest in the matter; and (3) whether the proposed proceeding is a reasonable and effective means to resolve the issues. Applying that test to the materials filed, the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence or capacity under the second and especially the third step to be "satisfied" that gra…
Source excerpt
The court struck a petition challenging a Mental Health Act detention, denied a further adjournment, and dismissed the claims without leave to amend.
The court granted public interest standing because the amended PHIA and Regulations raise a serious justiciable Charter privacy issue, the applicants demonstrated a genuine personal and organizational interest linked to the claim, and proceeding by these applicants is a reasonable and effective means to obtain judicial review; admissible affidavit material established capacity and commitment to prosecute and outweighed the respondent's assertions of hopelessness of the claim.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed an application for judicial review of the CORE’s final report, holding the report was advisory and not justiciable.
The motion for public interest standing was granted because the challenge raised a serious justiciable issue, CCF demonstrated a genuine interest and was not a busybody despite being Ontario‑headquartered, and CCF has the capacity, expertise and does not pose a prejudicial duplication of judicial resources such that its suit is a reasonable and effective means of bringing the issues before the court; the existence of a parallel individual judicial review did not render CCF’s participation unnecessary or prejudicial.
Source excerpt
The stay motion was dismissed because a stay under Rule 90.41 is not an appropriate mechanism to prevent publication and the appellant did not seek or justify a confidentiality order under Rule 85.04; the motion to amend was granted in part because the proposed ground alleging reasonable apprehension of bias was arguable and reasonably necessary, while proposed amendments alleging denial of public interest standing and new section 15 Charter claims were unsustainable or unsuitable to be raised for the first time on appeal; costs of $500 awarded to respondents.
Source excerpt
Explore more
