Case Law

Sources in this library

• Canadian Caselaw
• Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal of Ontario

Latest documents

• Jalali v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 603

  [1] The Principle Applicant, Sara Jalali, (“PA”) seeks judicial review of a decision made by an Immigration Officer (the “Officer”) on February 21, 2023, refusing the PA’s study permit application.

• Ali v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 607

  [1] The Court heard these two applications together and one set of reasons will be issued and filed in each Court file.

• Vetrici v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 602

  [1] The Applicant, Mr. Grigore Vetrici, applied for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit [CERB] and the Canada Recovery Benefit [CRB]. On March 28, 2022, an Officer at the Canada Revenue Agency [Officer] rejected the applications. A second review was requested, and on May 30, 2022, the applications were again refused. The Applicant seeks judicial review of the May 30, 2022 decisions.

• Société des casinos du Québec inc. v. Association des cadres de la Société des casinos du Québec, 2024 SCC 13

  [1]                             These appeals address whether the statutory exclusion of managers from the labour relations regime of the Quebec Labour Code, CQLR, c. C-27, infringes the guarantee of freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Canadian Charter” or “Charter”) and s. 3 of the Quebec Charter of human rights and freedoms, CQLR, c. C‑12 (“Quebec Charter”).

• Westjet v. Lareau, 2024 FCA 77

  [1] This is an appeal from a decision of the Canadian Transportation Agency. The Agency is not a party to the appeal. Nevertheless, after the parties to the appeal filed their memoranda of fact and law with the Court, the Agency presented to the Court its own memorandum of fact and law.

• Tazehkand v. Bank of Canada, 2024 FCA 73

  [1] On April 10, 2024, the Respondent Bank of Canada requested an assessment of costs following the order of the Court dated March 12, 2024, [Order] which states that: “[t]he motion to hold this matter in abeyance is dismissed, with costs.”

• Hutton v. Sayat, 2024 FC 601

  [1] On its face, this is an appeal of an Order of a Prothonotary dismissing the Plaintiff’s Motion for Further and Better Affidavits of Documents in an action he has filed in the Federal Court. Beneath the surface, the underlying action is an extraordinary farrago of claims in which the Plaintiff purports to be the target of surveillance by Canada’s security agencies, his work associates and friends including two former romantic partners. His efforts to pursue those claims against the named individual defendants are, in this Judge’s view, a form of harassment.

• Kuk v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FCA 74

  [1] Wieslaw Kuk appeals a decision of the Federal Court (2023 FC 1134, per Justice Glennys L. McVeigh) that dismissed his application for judicial review of a decision of the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal (SST). The Appeal Division decision in issue refused Mr. Kuk leave to appeal a decision of the General Division of the SST that found that he was not entitled to employment insurance (EI) benefits following his dismissal from employment with University Health Network (UHN) for failure to comply with its COVID-19 vaccination policy (the Vaccination Policy).

• Democracy Watch v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FCA 75

  [1] The appellants appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court in Democracy Watch v. Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 31 (per Southcott J.). In that judgment, the Federal Court dismissed the appellants’ application challenging the process by which judges are appointed under section 96 and 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The appellants alleged that the appointment process is subject to political discretionary control, influence, and interference by the federal Minister of Justice and Cabinet. The appellants argued before the Federal Court that such control, influence, and interference undermines the institutional independence of the judiciary in violation of sections 7, 11(d), and 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

• Dye & Durham Limited v. Ingarra, 2024 FCA 76

  [1] The appellants are defendants in a proposed class action brought under section 45 of the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34 (the Act). They sought an order removing plaintiffs’ counsel as counsel of record, alleging that counsel had received relevant confidential information in the course of a prior retainer of a lawyer who was, at one point, also counsel to the defendants.