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 declared Kathleen Helen Walker a vexatious litigant, struck her fifth affidavit, and ordered leave be required before new proceedings in BC courts.
The court struck the Kirzner affidavit in its present expert form because most of the expert opinions were not logically relevant or necessary to the sole issue of quantum of costs, some sought to decide matters for the trier of fact, and the nexus between the expert's expertise and the tax/audit issues was insufficient; however the court allowed a limited substitutionary affidavit confined to factual interview notes, the expert's factual recollection of late litigation history, and copies of literature referenced, with deadlines for filing and rights for the Respondent to respond or seek cro…
Source excerpt
The court granted the Minister's motion in part: it struck specified paragraphs (26–30; 32–40; 156; 159–313) of the Vainionpaa affidavit as inadmissible for the purposes of adjudicating Parts I and II because those sections crossed into merits and legal conclusions unnecessary at the preliminary stage; the remainder of the Vainionpaa affidavit (paragraphs 1–25, 28, 31, 41–155) was not pre‑emptively struck because it may be necessary to explain technical VoIP operations; the Bowers and Tretiakov factual affidavits were held admissible; the Minister was granted leave to file rebuttal affidavits…
Source excerpt
The court exercised its gatekeeper function under the Civil Procedure Rules and Evidence Act: strike specific phrases that were inadmissible opinion or irrelevant hearsay (including the specified words in Sharon Samland para.19, much of Diane Peters paras.34 and 37, and the final sentence of para.38), but allow other challenged passages to remain for the hearing judge to assess in context and under s.45's corroboration requirement; the principled approach to hearsay does not save statements that are neither necessary nor reliable or are purely opinionated about what the deceased allegedly sai…
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed a Rule 51 appeal and cross-appeal over affidavit evidence, leaving the prothonotary’s mixed rulings in place and awarding no costs.
The Federal Court dismissed a motion to appeal, upholding an order that struck nine affidavits filed on judicial review because they were new evidence not before the Appeal Board.
The court struck reply expert evidence in a securities leave petition, holding it introduced new IFRS non-compliance issues and amounted to improper case splitting.
Court struck non-responsive reply affidavits and expert opinions in a Securities Act leave application, holding the case-splitting rule applies to s. 140.8 proceedings.
The June 5, 2020 email from the Minister constituted a separate reviewable decision because it responded to new complaints presenting new facts (including contemporaneous photographs and reports of heavy equipment) and therefore involved a fresh exercise of discretion; consequently the judicial review filed by the Applicants was timely; Applicants and Ms. Skerrett, as proximate property owners/users of James Beach, have private interest standing but not public interest standing; specified portions of the Applicants' and Ms. Skerrett's affidavits are struck as set out in Appendix A.
Source excerpt
The court refused to set aside the January 8, 2018 consent order and exercised its authority under the Rules to strike or exclude portions of Ms. Irwin’s affidavit that were inadmissible (hearsay, collateral attacks, matters predating the CRO, assertions lacking foundation or impermissible lay opinion) while preserving statements based on her personal knowledge or belief and material relevant to an undue hardship claim; disputed matters of fact and credibility were reserved for trial or cross-examination.
Source excerpt
Explore more
