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 Court of Appeal summarily dismissed Syed Ahmad’s appeal, upholding the striking of his civil claim as an abuse of process because it relitigated prior judicial review issues.
The Court upheld the motion judge: the applications were properly struck because they failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action, were not properly commenced by way of application, and there was no reasonable apprehension of bias; the appeals were dismissed and costs were awarded to respondents in fixed amounts.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed a strike application in a tenancy-related civil claim, finding it was not clearly an abuse of process and allowing the self-represented plaintiff to amend.
The court struck out the claim, declared the plaintiff a vexatious litigant, imposed a filing bar without leave, and awarded special costs.
The Federal Court correctly struck the Statement of Claim as it plainly disclosed no reasonable cause of action: the claim lacked material particulars, failed to connect alleged torts to the Federal Crown, and the Federal Court lacks jurisdiction over alleged tortious conduct of Alberta judges; the appellant was properly declared a vexatious litigant based on his litigation history and prior court orders.
Source excerpt
Costs assessment in British Columbia where the court allowed part of the defendant’s bill of costs, refused an adjournment pending appeal, and fixed costs at $11,850.38.
The court partly allowed a strike application, striking occupation-rent set-offs but allowing investment-related set-offs and refusing to strike pleading allegations on duress, frustration, and implied term.
The Federal Court dismissed a Rule 51 motion to appeal an order striking the claim and refusing added defendants, finding no palpable and overriding error.
The court struck Judy Lynn Chorney’s notice of civil claim and dismissed the action, finding lack of standing, abuse of process, and several time-barred claims.
The motion judge correctly applied the test for an extension of time, properly concluded the proposed appeal had no apparent merit and that respondents would be prejudiced, and therefore denied the extension; the Court of Appeal found no error in that analysis and dismissed the motion to review, noting the Brampton action improperly attempted to circumvent prior Ottawa rulings and any legitimate issues can be litigated in the Ottawa proceedings.
Source excerpt
Explore more
