- Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (63169)
- Supreme Court of British Columbia (53260)
- Federal Court (36904)
- Supreme Court of Canada (26028)
- Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (25652)
- Ontario Court of Appeal (22282)
- Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan (17459)
- Court of Appeal of British Columbia (16877)
- Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (15124)
- Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (12946)
- Court of Appeal (Alberta) (12742)
- Federal Court of Appeal (Canada) (11163)
- Ontario Court of Justice (9734)
- Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (9717)
- Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Trial Division (8490)
- Provincial Court (Alberta) (7382)
- Court of Appeal of New Brunswick (6340)
- Court of Appeal (Manitoba) (6047)
- Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan (5845)
- Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (3855)
- Newfoundland Court of Appeal (2664)
- Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (2606)
- Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (1529)
- Provincial Court of Nova Scotia (1181)
- Small Claims Court of Nova Scotia (1076)
- Provincial Court of Manitoba (1042)
- Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories (906)
- Tax Court of Canada (787)
- Territorial Court of Yukon (717)
- Provincial Court of New Brunswick (682)
- Nunavut Court of Justicie (374)
- Court of Appeal (Yukon Territory) (277)
- Territorial Court of the Northwest Territories (218)
- Court of Appeal for the Northwest Territories (123)
- Nova Scotia Probate Court (108)
- Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island (99)
- Court of Appeal of Nunavaut (92)
- Provincial Court of British Columbia (22)
- La Rose v. Canada, 2020 FC 1008
 This is a motion to strike the Plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim without leave to amend. This motion is brought by the Defendants, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada and the Attorney General of Canada, on the basis that the Statement of Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action, pursuant to Rule 221 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106.
- Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. The Canadian Council for Refugees, 2020 FCA 181
 Before the Court is an appeal and cross-appeal from a judgment of the Federal Court (per McDonald J.): 2020 FC 770. The Ministers now move for an order staying or suspending the Federal Court’s judgment until this Court determines the appeal and cross-appeal.
- Sivanadian v. Kanagaratnam, 2020 ONSC 6502
- Hicks v. Ontario Ombudsman, 2020 ONSC 6510
- Richard v. Holmes, 2020 ONSC 6485
- Manzon v. Carruthers, 2020 ONSC 6511
- VMH v JH, 2020 ABCA 378
- Gluckstein Personal Injury Lawyers v. Elizabeth Verlaan-Cole, 2020 ONSC 6489
- Kachra v. Skeaff, 2020 ONSC 6518
- Wilton v. Northern Bruce Peninsula (Municipality), 2020 ONCA 674
- R. v. Marakah, 142 WCB (2d) 490
 Can Canadians ever reasonably expect the text messages they send to remain private, even after the messages have reached their destination? Or is the state free, regardless of the circumstances, to access text messages from a recipient’s device without a warrant?...
- R. v. Antic,  SCJ No 27 (QL)
 The right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause is an essential element of an enlightened criminal justice system. It entrenches the effect of the presumption of innocence at the pre-trial stage of the criminal trial process and safeguards the liberty...
- R. v. Bradshaw, 2017 SCC 35
 Hearsay is an out-of-court statement tendered for the truth of its contents. It is presumptively inadmissible because — in the absence of the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant at the time the statement is made — it is often difficult for the trier of fact...
- Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. British Columbia,  SCJ No 32 (QL)
 In British Columbia, the scope of appellate intervention in commercial arbitration is narrow in two key ways. First, there is limited jurisdiction for appellate review of arbitration awards because that jurisdiction is statutorily limited to questions of law (Arbitra...
- R. v. Cody, 349 CCC (3d) 488
 In R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27,  1 S.C.R. 631, this Court identified a culture of complacency towards delay in the criminal justice system. This culture was fostered by doctrinal and practical difficulties plaguing the analytical framework then applicable to the ...
- R. v. Boutilier, 2017 SCC 64
 The appellant, Mr. Boutilier, challenges the constitutional validity of s. 753(1) and (4.1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 , two provisions at the core of the dangerous offender regime, under ss. 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and...
- R. v. Jones,  2 SCR 696
 The appellant, Mr. Jones, was convicted of several firearms and drug trafficking offences. His convictions rest on records of text messages seized from a Telus account associated with his co-accused pursuant to a production order obtained under s. 487.012 (now s. 48...
- Delta Air Lines Inc. v. Lukács, 416 DLR (4th) 579
 The respondent, Dr. Gábor Lukács, filed a complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency (“Agency”), alleging that the appellant, Delta Air Lines Inc. (“Delta”), applied discriminatory practices governing the carriage of obese persons. The Agency dismissed this...
- Agraira v. Can. (SCC),  SCJ No 36 (QL)
 LeBel, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Moldaver and Karakatsanis, JJ., concurring) : The appellant, Muhsen Ahmed Ramadan Agraira, a citizen of Libya, has been residing in Canada continuously since 1997, despite having been found to be inadmissible on security grounds in 2002....
- R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9
 Children are the future of our country and our communities. They are also some of the most vulnerable members of our society. They deserve to enjoy a childhood free of sexual violence. Offenders who commit sexual violence against children deny thousands of Canadian...