P.R.C. v. C.K.C.
알 수 없는
- Reopening appeal
- Fresh evidence
- Functus officio
- Miscarriage of justice
- Excluded property
- Damages
Canada Source-linked decisions Coverage checked
Canada Case Law
Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
- Courts on this page
- 4 court collections
- Last checked
Search and filter Canada case law
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Kalemba v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a RAD refusal to reopen an appeal, holding the decision was reasonable and no breach of natural justice was shown.
- Reopening appeal
- Natural justice
- Identity evidence
- Counsel error
- Rule 49 rad rules
- Standard of review: reasonableness
R. v. Scott
Where an appeal was heard and decided on the merits and a formal order was issued, the Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to reopen the appeal merely because the panel allegedly failed to consider or correctly appreciate a particular merit-based argument; correctness of the panel's assessment is not a ground to reopen and further review is reserved to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Source excerpt
- Reopening appeal
- Functus officio
- Interests of justice
- Unreasonable verdict
- Finality of proceedings
Coad v. Lariviere
The Court of Appeal dismissed a motion to reopen an appeal in an estate dispute, holding the appellant had not met any threshold for reopening after final order.
- Reopening appeal
- Functus officio
- Fresh evidence
- Miscarriage of justice
- Indemnity costs
- Administration of estate
The Owners, Strata Plan NW 499 v. Louis
Supplementary reasons dismissing an application to reopen a Court of Appeal decision. The court found no clear and compelling case of miscarriage of justice.
- Reopening appeal
- Finality
- Miscarriage of justice
- Res judicata
- Reopening-appeal
- Miscarriage-of-justice
R. v. Smithen-Davis
The court held that fairness required that Hamilton be treated as having waived solicitor-client privilege with respect to communications about the accuracy of and how the Agreed Statement of Fact came about, and therefore he must answer questions in cross-examination on those matters; cross-examination is to be conducted before a judge or commissioner and further proceedings are to be case managed by a judge of the Court of Appeal.
Source excerpt
- Waiver of privilege
- Agreed statement of facts
- Reopening appeal
- Cross-examination
- Affidavit admissibility
R. v. M.S.
The Court of Appeal quashed M.S.’s application to reopen his appeal, holding the earlier appeal had already been heard on the merits and the court was functus officio.
- Reopening appeal
- Functus officio
- Incest (s.155 criminal code)
- Vagueness doctrine
- Charter s.7
- Publication ban
TC0-09812
The reopening application was dismissed because the Applicants failed to establish a failure to observe a principle of natural justice; the RAD had considered the proffered documents and provided reasoned findings that they were either known earlier or not sufficiently relevant, and subsection 171(1) IRPA bars reopening absent a natural justice breach.
Source excerpt
- Reopening appeal
- Natural justice
- Admission of new evidence
- Internal flight alternative
- Rad rules
- Irpa s.171 and s.110(4)
R. v. Codina
The application to file fresh evidence and to reopen the appeal was dismissed because the proposed material was legal argument, not fresh evidence under Palmer, and was irrelevant to the sufficiency of the application judge's reasons, so reopening was not justified.
Source excerpt
- Jurisdiction
- Fresh evidence
- Sufficiency of reasons
- Reopening appeal
Geliedan v. Rawdah
The application to reopen the appeal was dismissed because the new text-message evidence was irrelevant to the central appellate issue—respecting and deferring to the U.K. Consent Custody Order and requiring the father to pursue relief in the U.K.—and reopening is only permitted where a very serious injustice would result, which was not shown here.
Source excerpt
- Consent custody order
- Children's law reform act s.40
- Fresh evidence
- Reopening appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Costs
Explore more