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 granted summary judgment and struck out Darwin Yanchak’s claim seeking recovery of EI-related garnished monies, finding no genuine issue for trial and no costs.
Both the claim and the counterclaim are statute-barred because the material facts constituting discoverable damage occurred in 2021 more than two years before filings, and no valid written and signed acknowledgement under s.20 of the LOAA was proved to reset the limitation period; typed names or valedictions in emails do not satisfy the statutory signature requirement or the threshold for an acknowledgement as required by s.20(10) and the Electronic Commerce Act does not transform such emails into signed acknowledgements in the absence of prescribed electronic signature verification.
Source excerpt
The applicant's claim for taxation of fees was largely statute‑barred because the limitation period began to run such that fees rendered prior to November 5, 2021 were discovered or reasonably discoverable and no written acknowledgement, interim billing, or contingency agreement existed to extend the limitation period; therefore the majority of the claim is barred and only services from November 5, 2021 onward may proceed to taxation.
Source excerpt
Judicial review dismissed: the Federal Court held the Appeal Division reasonably refused leave to appeal because the OAS cancellation request was statute-barred.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the cumulative costs award fell below the $50,000 threshold in s.19(1.2)(a) of the Courts of Justice Act and binding authority (Mullin v. Lagace) establishes that the statutory monetary limit applies to costs when a costs order is the subject of the appeal.
Source excerpt
Permission to appeal was refused because the Applicant filed his request more than one year after the impugned decisions were communicated and DESDA s.57(2) places an absolute one‑year limit on applications for leave to appeal, precluding any extension; therefore the appeal had no reasonable chance of success and must be dismissed.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the claimant applied for disability more than 15 months after her retirement pension began, so the CPP bars cancelling the retirement pension in favour of a disability pension, and independently the claimant failed to meet the MQP for a PRDB (only one contribution in the relevant six-year period), rendering her ineligible for both benefits.
Source excerpt
The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed an application to vary a prior order and refused an extension of time, finding no reviewable error and no prospect of success.
The application was filed on September 18, 2018, more than one year after the decision was communicated on April 18, 2017, and is therefore statute-barred under s.66(2) DESDA; accordingly the application must be dismissed and the merits cannot be considered.
Source excerpt
Refusal of the extension of time was mandated because the applicant offered no reasonable explanation for the delay, failed to demonstrate a continuing intention to pursue the appeal, and, critically, had no arguable case: there was no evidence she applied earlier and she did not meet the statutory incapacity test that would overcome the CPP's 11‑month retroactivity limit.
Source excerpt
Explore more
