Case Law

Sources in this library

• Supreme Court (Canada)
• Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
• Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)
• Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada)
• Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Court of Appeal (Northwest Territories)
• Nunavut Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Supreme Court of Northwest Territories (Canada)
• Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Supreme Court (Trial Division) of Prince Edward Island (Canada)
• Court of Appeal (Yukon Territory)
• Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Federal Court (Canada)
• Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Provincial Court of British Columbia (Canada)
• Provincial Court of Manitoba (Canada)
• Provincial Court of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court (Canada)
• Provincial Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Territorial Court of Northwest Territories (Canada)
• Nunavut Court of Justice (Canada)
• Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Tax Court (Canada)
• Territorial Court of Yukon (Canada)
• Small Claims Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Probate Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Court of Appeal (Newfoundland)
• Specific Claims Tribunal

Jurisdiction

Latest documents

• Razzaque v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 420

  [1]Mr. Abdul Razzaque (the “Principal Applicant”), his wife Ayesha Razzaque, and their children Hurain Abdul Razzaque, Abdul Rafay Razzaque, Jamila Razzaque and Muhammed Yousuf (collectively “the Applicants”) seek judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Appeal Division (the “RAD”), dismissing their appeal from the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the “RPD”). The RPD dismissed the Applicants’ claim for protection on the basis of the availability of an Internal Flight Alternative (“IFA”).

• Coca-Cola Company v. Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 424

  [1] The Appellant, The Coca-Cola Company [TCCC], appeals a May 13, 2021 decision [Decision] of the Commissioner of Patents [Commissioner] in which the Commissioner adopted the recommendations of the Patent Appeal Board [PAB], and refused to grant a patent on Canadian Patent Application No. 2,718,279 [Application] on the basis that the claims of the Application were obvious and did not satisfy section 28.3 of the Patent Act, RSC 1985, c P-4 [Patent Act].

• Malik v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 429

  [1] Asad Abbas Malik is a citizen of Pakistan. He seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board [IRB]. The RAD confirmed the determination of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] of the IRB that Mr. Malik is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to ss 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27.

• IMS Incorporated v. Toronto Regional Real Estate Board, 2023 FCA 70

  [1] The appellants, IMS Inc. and Leon Y. d’Ancona (collectively, IMS), appeal from the order issued by Justice Pallotta of the Federal Court (the motion judge) in Toronto Regional Real Estate Board v. IMS Incorporated, 2021 FC 1239. In that order, the motion judge overturned a portion of an earlier unreported speaking order, issued on April 7, 2021 in T-900-20 by Prothonotary Milczynski (whom I term the prothonotary, as that was the applicable title at the time the order in issue in this appeal was rendered). In her order, the prothonotary, who was acting as the case management judge, struck out the statement of claim of the respondent, Toronto Regional Real Estate Board (TRREB), with leave to amend certain claims that are not relevant to this appeal.

• Gutierrez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 418

  [1] The Applicant, Jesus Alberto Gallardo Gutierrez, is a citizen of Mexico. He claims to fear for his life at the hands of the Barrendera cartel on the basis that he refused to pay a monthly extortion fee and lodged a complaint with the police.

• Bhuiyan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 410

  [1] The applicants, Mr. Rakebul Islam Bhuiyan, his wife Ms. Samiza Khan Mojlish, and their children Faeezah Ruquyyah Zaina and Fawziyah Rubaba Bhuiyan [together, the Bhuiyans] are seeking judicial review of a decision rendered on January 14, 2022 [Decision], whereby the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] confirmed the Refugee Protection Division’s [RPD] decision rejecting their claims for refugee protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. The RAD determined that viable internal flight alternatives [IFAs] existed for the Bhuiyans in Khulna or Chittagong, Bangladesh, their country of citizenship.

• Allanah v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 408

  [1] The Applicants, Grace Oguga Allanah [the Principal Applicant or PA] and her two children, Chukwufumnaya Stephanie Allanah [Minor Applicant Stephanie] and Chukwuebuniem Daniel Allanah [Minor Applicant Daniel], are citizens of Nigeria. The Principal Applicant has two other children who are citizens of the United States of America.

• R. v. Bharwani,

  Jury hear psychiatric opinion evidence during the trial. Fitness test. Criminal offences. Mental disorder

• Broer v. Multiguide GmbH,

  Shareholder loan. Equity contribution. Reasonable alternative interpretations after an examination of the agreement. Financial statements. Time of the advance

• Akpan (Re),

  Permission to appeal. Criminal sanctions for illegal conduct. Inherent jurisdiction. Hearing of the application