Case Law

Sources in this library

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

Latest documents

• 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.

• 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.

• Mohammadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 598

  [1] The Applicant, a young Iranian citizen, was refused a study permit to attend Grade 12 at a private Ontario high school. A visa officer at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [IRCC] found that the Applicant had not established that he would leave Canada at the end of his studies and refused the study permit. The refusal was based on two key findings: 1) the officer was not satisfied that the purpose of the Applicant’s visit to Canada was consistent with a temporary stay; and 2) the Applicant had not provided adequate information to establish that he had sufficient finances to support the stated purpose of his travel.

• Heron v. Salt River First Nation no. 195, 2024 FC 597

  [1] This is a motion for an interlocutory injunction (dated April 11, 2024) to:

• Damangir v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 599

  [1] The Applicants – Houman Damangir, Shahram Laleh, Reza Damangir, Shahram Mahmoudzadeh Hashtroudi [Mr. Hashtroudi] and Hadi Dadpoor – seek judicial review of decisions of a Visa Officer [the Officer] refusing each of their applications for permanent residence as members of the Start-up Business Class.

• Tan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 600

  [1] … an opportunity … to address the question of how a court may give adequate deference to a tribunal when a party raises an issue before the court on judicial review, which was never raised before the tribunal and where, as a consequence, the tribunal provided no express reasons with respect to the disposition of that issue.