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
Court of Appeal set aside a Rule 30.10 production order against Tribunals Ontario, finding the requested tribunal records were not shown to be probative or necessary.
The court found the Department conducted a reasonable search and the majority of redactions made under s.20(1) were justified given the files' child‑welfare context and third‑party privacy interests; limited disclosure was required — the recorded birthdate on page 1 and the birthdate referenced on page 1399 must be disclosed — and several specific documents were mischaracterized as privileged or exempt and must be unredacted, while other documents were properly withheld under s.16 (privilege), s.14(1) (advice) or s.4(2)(b) (public record/duplicates). The appeal is allowed in part and dismisse…
Source excerpt
The prior DeCotiis disclosure order with an express temporal limitation is final and bars production of the Lee and Geddes reports (they post‑date the cutoff) so issue estoppel/abuse of process prevents relitigation; conversely, Documents 673 and 682 fall within the previously ordered scope and the wills exception overrides asserted litigation or third‑party privilege, so the redacted documents must be produced unredacted within seven days.
Source excerpt
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Steven Nowack’s motion for production of redacted email material sought during his criminal appeal.
The court found the defendants had not complied with the registrar's production order and had filed misleading affidavits, but the non-compliance did not warrant a permanent stay or striking of the special costs award; the appropriate course is to dismiss the application, refer the matter back to Registrar Gaily to implement tailored disclosure and case management, and allow the defendants a further opportunity to comply while ordering each party to bear their own costs.
Source excerpt
The District proved on a balance of probabilities that Dr. Este committed repeated contraventions of Building Bylaw No. 4400 (unpermitted construction, tampering with Stop Work Orders, obstructing inspectors and occupying without final occupancy approval). There were no exceptional circumstances to deny relief. Because the Demolition Order and related issues have been finally adjudicated on judicial review, the alleged new evidence does not raise a triable issue sufficient to convert the petition into an action or to reopen the prior determinations. Accordingly a permanent statutory injunctio…
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed an interlocutory appeal in a section 72 immigration judicial review, finding paragraph 72(2)(e) of IRPA barred the appeal and no palpable error was shown.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Alek Minassian’s production motion for a post-Hason Crown communication and review materials about Dr. Woodside.
Application dismissed because, even without conclusively determining prima facie distribution to counsel, the respondent successfully invoked the s.7(1) public interest defence for sharing the text messages with his lawyer in the solicitor-client context (limited 'small icon'), and the affidavit reference did not itself distribute an intimate image; court lacks authority to grant Criminal Code relief.
Source excerpt
Leave to amend was granted because the proposed amendments disclosed reasonable causes of action, the delay in pleading personal injury claims was explained and not sufficiently prejudicial given the close factual connection to existing claims and available time before trial, and allowing the amendments better serves the interests of justice than preserving the limitation defence to trial; costs were awarded against the plaintiffs for the application.
Source excerpt
Explore more
