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 dismissed a judicial review of a PRRA refusal, finding no proved solicitor-client relationship and no clear evidence of ineffective assistance.
Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal on whether Paul Kasanda was a client of the lawyers for a solicitor-client relationship and account assessment.
The court dismissed an application to disqualify the plaintiff’s law firm, finding no solicitor-client relationship with the moving defendant and no conflict in a derivative action.
The court dismissed the respondent’s application to vary a consent order, entered the claimant’s proposed order except one paragraph, and awarded special costs from June 6, 2025.
The court awarded special costs after finding the self-represented applicant made unfounded allegations of fraud and dishonesty against estate parties and counsel.
The court dismissed a petition for declarations that a union staff lawyer was the petitioner’s solicitor and that he owned the union grievance files.
The court struck the claims against the lawyer defendants, finding the amended pleading lacked material facts, was vexatious in part, and warranted special costs.
The motion judge correctly found, on the evidentiary record, that the appellant's conduct caused a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, that the respondent was entitled to withdraw, that there was no evidence of negligence or malice, and that the respondent's communications to Legal Aid Ontario were truthful; accordingly summary judgment dismissing the action was appropriate and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The court confirmed a prior disclosure order and rejected conditions sought on unredacted disclosure under s. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the application judge that the retainer was a pay-as-you-go hourly agreement with a reduced hourly rate and an expressly provided premium payable on a favourable result; the retainer unambiguously capped only the amount of any premium under a formula tied to recovery and did not cap hourly fees, and the judge did not err in his application of contract interpretation principles including consideration of surrounding circumstances under Sattva.
Source excerpt
Explore more
