- 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)
- Jefferson v. Canada, 2022 FCA 81
 The appellant, Allen Jefferson, appeals a decision of the Tax Court of Canada, reported at 2019 TCC 91 (per Paris J.), dismissing his appeal of an assessment under section 160 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.). Section 160 permits the Minister of National Revenue (Minister) to assess a particular person (transferee) for the unpaid income tax debt of another person (tax debtor) if, at the time the tax debt is outstanding, the tax debtor transfers property to the transferee for less than fair market value consideration, and the tax debtor and transferee are not dealing with each other at arm’s length.
- Canada (Attorney General) v. National Police Federation, 2022 FCA 80
 Labour legislation in all Canadian jurisdictions imposes a freeze on the terms and conditions of employment of bargaining unit employees. The freeze prevents employers from unilaterally altering the terms and conditions following the filing of an application for certification or provision of notice to bargain for the employees’ bargaining unit. The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, s. 2 (the FPSLRA) contains such statutory freeze provisions. One, in section 56, applies after an employer has been advised that an application for certification has been made. This is sometimes called a “certification freeze”. Another, in section 107, applies after notice to bargain has been given. This is sometimes called a “bargaining freeze”.
- R. v. Brown, 2022 SCC 18
                              Following a party at which he had consumed alcohol and “magic mushrooms”, Matthew Winston Brown violently attacked Janet Hamnett, a person he did not know and who had done nothing to invite the assault. At the time, Mr. Brown was in what the trial judge described as a “substance intoxication delirium” that was so extreme as to be “akin to automatism” (2020 ABQB 166, 9 Alta. L.R. (7th) 375, at para. 87). While capable of physical movement, he was in a delusional state and had no willed control over his actions. Mr. Brown’s extreme intoxication akin to automatism was brought about by his voluntary ingestion of the magic mushrooms which contained a drug called psilocybin. Mr. Brown was acquitted at trial. The Alberta Court of Appeal set aside that verdict and convicted him of the general intent offence of aggravated assault.
- R. v. Sullivan, 2022 SCC 19
                             After having voluntarily taken an overdose of a prescription drug and falling into an impaired state, David Sullivan attacked his mother with a knife and injured her gravely. He was charged with several offences, including aggravated assault and assault with a weapon. In unrelated circumstances, Thomas Chan also fell into an impaired state after he voluntarily ingested “magic mushrooms” containing a drug called psilocybin. Mr. Chan attacked his father with a knife and killed him and seriously injured his father’s partner. He was tried for manslaughter and aggravated assault.
- Deeproot Green Infrastructure, LLC v. Greenblue Urban North America Inc., 2022 FC 709
 These are the reasons following a contempt hearing, where the Plaintiffs (DeepRoot) allege that the Defendant (GreenBlue) is in contempt of the Court’s Judgment in Deeproot Green Infrastructure, LLC v Greenblue Urban North America Inc, 2021 FC 501 (Judgment).
- Balakumar v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2022 FC 703
 This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD], dated October 23, 2019, dismissing the Applicant’s appeal and confirming the decision by the Refugee Protection Division [RPD], finding the Applicant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA].
- Sinnette v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 685
 The applicant, Ms. Beverlly Frances Sinnette, is a 67-year-old citizen of Trinidad and Tobago [Trinidad] and has been in Canada without status for 34 years; she first arrived in 1988 and has not returned to Trinidad since. Other than a cousin in Canada, Ms. Sinnette’s family – her three adult sons, two sisters and two brothers, and the families of the one sister and one brother who are married – all live in Trinidad. Ms. Sinnette seeks judicial review of a decision dated April 21, 2021 [Decision], rendered by a senior immigration officer [Officer], that refused her application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate [H&C] grounds – she was seeking an exemption from the requirement of applying for permanent residence from abroad. The Officer found that the factors submitted by Ms. Sinnette were insufficient to justify an exemption under subsection 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [Act].
- Abskhiron v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 683
 The Applicants are a mother and her three minor children. They came to Canada in May 2018 and claimed refugee protection based on their fear of persecution in Sudan and Egypt on the grounds of the principal Applicant having been accused and convicted of proselytizing in Sudan. They now seek judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] refusing their claim.
- Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 692
 The Applicant seeks judicial review of the decision to refuse his work permit application, made by an Immigration Officer (the “Officer”) in New Delhi. At the end of the hearing of this Application, which took place on May 9, 2022, I granted the judicial review, provided a brief explanation for why, and indicated that written reasons would follow in short order. For the reasons detailed here, I find the decision to be unreasonable and the application is granted.
- Pandher v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 687
 This is the judicial review of a decision of a visa officer [Visa Officer] with the High Commission of Canada in New Delhi, India, refusing the application of Arshdeep Singh Pandher [Applicant] for a study permit and finding him to be inadmissible due to misrepresentation, pursuant to ss 40(1)(a) and 42(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA].
- R. v. Généreux, 8 CRR (2d) 89
 Lamer, C.J.C. : This appeal involves a constitutional challenge, under ss. 7, 11(d) and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , to the proceedings of a General Court Martial convened under the National Defence Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. N-5. The principal question raised in this case...
- Mckinney v. University of Guelph,  3 SCR 229
- Hodgkinson v. Simms et al.,  3 SCR 377
 La Forest, J. : This is a case of material nondisclosure in which the appellant alleges breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract against the respondent in the performance of a contract for investment advice and other tax-related financial services. The respondent, Mr. Simms, was a...
- R. v. Grant (D.), (2009) 391 N.R. 1 (SCC)
 McLachlin, C.J.C., and Charron, J. : Mr. Grant appeals his convictions on a series of firearms offences, relating to a gun seized by police during an encounter on a Toronto sidewalk. The gun was entered as evidence against Mr. Grant and formed the basis of his convictions. The question on this...
- R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd.,  1 SCR 295,  1 SCR 295
 Dickson, J. : Big M Drug Mart Ltd. was charged with unlawfully carrying on the sale of goods, on Sunday, May 30, 1982 in the City of Calgary, Alberta, contrary to the Lord's Day Act , R.S.C. 1970, c. L-13....
- R. v. L. (D.O.),  4 SCR 419
- D.B.S. v. S.R.G., (2006) 351 N.R. 201 (SCC)
 Bastarache, J. : The present appeals involve the parental obligation to support one's children, and the question of whether this obligation compels parents to make child support payments for periods of time when the responsibility to do so was never identified, much less enforced. This...
- R. v. City of Sault Ste. Marie,  2 SCR 1299
 DICKSON, J. : In the present appeal the Court is concerned with offences variously referred to as "statutory," "public welfare," "regulatory," "absolute liability," or "strict responsibility," which are not criminal in any real sense, but are...
- R. v. C.A.M., (1996) 194 N.R. 321 (SCC)
 Lamer, C.J.C. : In 1992, the respondent, C.A.M., pleaded guilty to numerous counts of sexual assault, incest, assault with a weapon, in addition to other lesser offences, arising from a largely uncontested pattern of sexual, physical and emotional abuse inflicted upon his children over a number ...
- R. v. Audet (Y.),  2 SCR 171
 La Forest, J. [Translation]: For the first time, this court has the opportunity to analyse the meaning and scope of s. 153(1) of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, which prohibits every person who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person or with whom a young...