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 applicant failed to meet the high onus to show actual or reasonably apprehended bias; criticisms of prior decisions and perceived procedural unfairness are matters for appeal, not recusal; the s.211 report had been ordered and the court's scheduling directions do not demonstrate a predetermined outcome, therefore recusal was not justified and the application is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The court set three related sexual abuse liability trials to be heard at the same time, while leaving admissibility of similar fact evidence to the trial judge.
The court refused to let the defendant add a minor-injury defence and stay the action for a CRT determination, finding the delay explanation inadequate and the plaintiff would lose a trial date.
The trial judge did not err in apportioning 30 days of the Feb 14–Apr 3 period to the defence under Hanan; the Crown failed to establish on the record that additional specific periods were attributable to COVID‑19 backlog so no further pandemic deductions were granted; net delay exceeded the Jordan ceiling and a stay was required under s.11(b).
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court of British Columbia granted a defence application to adjourn a civil trial, finding the balance of prejudice favoured protecting fair-trial rights.
The court dismissed a union’s application to adjourn a wrongful dismissal trial date scheduled by notice of trial under Rule 12-1(7)(b).
The court adjourned a motor vehicle injury trial because the plaintiff’s pending medical review and possible release could materially affect damages and future earning capacity.
La Cour ordonne que quatre actions liées au projet Bear Mountain soient entendues ensemble, concluant que les faits, les relations et les questions se recoupent fortement.
The court granted an adjournment of a common issues trial after plaintiffs received substantial new witness documents requiring review, listing, and possible further discovery.
The application judge erred by measuring marked delay against a hypothetical scenario of a fully staffed court and by treating unfilled judicial vacancies as per se unreasonable for s.11(b) purposes; because the net delay (26.5 months) was below the 30‑month Jordan ceiling and the defence did not rebut the presumption of reasonableness, the stay was wrongly entered; appeal allowed, stay set aside and new trial ordered.
Source excerpt
Explore more
