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

• R. v. Hilbach, 2023 SCC 3

  [1]                             This appeal questions whether the mandatory minimum sentences for robbery imposed in s. 344(1)(a)(i) and (a.1) of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46 , constitute cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . Specifically, Mr. Hilbach challenges the minimum of five years’ imprisonment prescribed under s. 344(1)(a)(i) where a robbery is committed with a restricted or prohibited firearm, arguing that it is a grossly disproportionate sentence in regards to his circumstances. Mr. Zwozdesky relies on a set of hypothetical scenarios to challenge the minimum of four years’ imprisonment previously imposed by s. 344(1)(a.1 ) where an ordinary firearm is used. The mandatory minimum sentence prescribed in s. 344(1)(a.1 ) was repealed after this appeal was heard. Despite this legislative change, these reasons examine the impugned mandatory minimum as previously enacted.

• R. v. Hills, 2023 SCC 2

  [1]                              This appeal, and the companion appeal of R. v. Hilbach, 2023 SCC 3, provide the Court with an opportunity to clarify the legal principles that govern when the constitutionality of a mandatory minimum sentencing provision is challenged under s. 12  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . At issue in both appeals are three different offences under the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 , which involve the use of a firearm. In this appeal, the appellant, Jesse Dallas Hills, was convicted of discharging a firearm into or at a home under s. 244.2(1) (a). Mr. Hills challenges the four‑year mandatory minimum sentence previously imposed by s. 244.2(3) (b) for this offence. The mandatory minimum sentence prescribed in s. 244.2(3) (b) was repealed after this appeal was heard. Despite this legislative change, the reasons examine the impugned mandatory minimum as previously enacted. In the companion case, Ocean William Storm Hilbach and Curtis Zwozdesky were convicted of armed robbery. They challenge, respectively, the five‑year mandatory minimum for robbery with a restricted or prohibited firearm under s. 344(1) (a)(i) and the former four‑year mandatory minimum for robbery with a firearm under s. 344(1) (a.1 ). The mandatory minimum sentence set out in s. 344(1) (a.1 ) was also repealed after the Hilbach appeal was heard.

• Masuskapoe v. Ahtahkakoop Cree Nation, 2023 FC 124

  [1] This Application challenges the June 18, 2021 election [Election] results for a Councillor position at Ahtahkakoop Cree Nation [ACN] pursuant to section 31 of the First Nations Elections Act, SC 2014, c 5 [FNEA]. The Applicant, Kathy Masuskapoe, claims issues with the mail-in ballots impacted the Election results.

• Cubias v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 121

  [1] The Applicants have brought a Motion to Strike an affidavit (filed August 18, 2022), which was submitted by the Respondent, The Honourable Steven Guilbeault [Minister Guilbeault or Respondent], in the underlying Application. I will neither strike the affidavit, nor grant the alternate relief sought by the Applicants, for the reasons explained below.

• Kaya v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 123

  [1] Ismail Kaya [Applicant] seeks judicial review of the Refugee Protection Division’s [RPD] August 21, 2020 decision [Decision] ceasing his refugee protection pursuant to subsection 108(3) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. The RPD found that the Applicant voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of Turkey, his country of nationality, pursuant to paragraph 108(1)(a) of IRPA.

• Kulasegaram v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 108

  [1] Mr. Kogularajesh Kulasegaram (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of a Senior Immigration Officer (the “Officer”), dismissing his Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (“PRRA”) application, made pursuant to section 112 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the “Act”). The Officer dismissed the application on the grounds that the Applicant did not present enough evidence to show that he is a Convention refugee or person in need of protection, within the scope of section 96 and subsection 97(1), respectively, of the Act.

• Moreno Ordaz v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 109

  [1] Mr. Luis Angel Moreno Ordaz (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the “RPD”), dismissing his claim for recognition as a Convention refugee, pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the “Act”). The RPD dismissed his claim on the basis of negative credibility findings and the lack of prospective risk, assessed upon the balance of probabilities.

• Kabba v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 117

  [1] The Applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] that confirmed the determination of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD], both of which concluded that he is not a Convention refugee. I dismissed the Judicial Review from the bench, with reasons to follow. These are the reasons.

• Lopez Escobedo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 116

  [1] Mr. Miguel Angel Lopez Escobedo (the “Principal Applicant”), his wife Diana Vanesa Arriaga Cardona and their daughters Catherine Bridgett Lopez Arriaga and Evelyn Scarlett Lopez Arriaga (collectively “the Applicants”), seek judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Appeal Division (the “RAD”). In its decision, the RAD confirmed the findings of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the “RPD”) that an Internal Flight Alternative (“IFA”) was available to the Applicants in Mexico, their country of citizenship.

• Commissioner of Competition v. Rogers Communications Inc. et al., 2023 FCA 16

  [1] The Commissioner of Competition appeals to this Court from the Competition Tribunal’s order dated December 31, 2022: 2023 Comp Trib 1. The jurisdiction for this appeal is section 13 of the Competition Tribunal Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 19 (2nd. Supp.).