- Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (65445)
- Supreme Court of British Columbia (54210)
- Federal Court (37294)
- Supreme Court of Canada (26062)
- Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (26050)
- Ontario Court of Appeal (22632)
- Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan (17615)
- Court of Appeal of British Columbia (17104)
- Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (15310)
- Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (13113)
- Court of Appeal (Alberta) (12962)
- Federal Court of Appeal (Canada) (11245)
- Ontario Court of Justice (10141)
- Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (9809)
- Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Trial Division (8537)
- Provincial Court (Alberta) (7556)
- Court of Appeal of New Brunswick (6366)
- Court of Appeal (Manitoba) (6098)
- Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan (5915)
- Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (3902)
- Newfoundland Court of Appeal (2686)
- Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (2637)
- Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (1550)
- Provincial Court of Nova Scotia (1207)
- Small Claims Court of Nova Scotia (1089)
- Provincial Court of Manitoba (1053)
- Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories (906)
- Tax Court of Canada (834)
- Territorial Court of Yukon (732)
- Provincial Court of New Brunswick (686)
- Nunavut Court of Justicie (400)
- Court of Appeal (Yukon Territory) (281)
- Territorial Court of the Northwest Territories (218)
- Court of Appeal for the Northwest Territories (123)
- Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island (114)
- Nova Scotia Probate Court (108)
- Court of Appeal of Nunavaut (100)
- Provincial Court of British Columbia (22)
- Canada v. CHR Investment Corporation, 2021 FCA 68
 The issue in this appeal is whether the Crown should be obligated to respond to six undertaking requests made during the discovery examination of the representative of the Crown. The Tax Court of Canada concluded that the Crown should be required to produce the requested documents (if they exist) (2020 TCC 17). The Crown has appealed that Order.
- Anderson v. M.N.R., 2021 TCC 28
 In 2016, was Michael M. Anderson an employee of Northern Interior Insurance Adjusters Ltd. (“NIIA”), or was his corporation, 1883022 Alberta Ltd. (“188AB”), a contractor working for NIIA? That is the question to be decided in these Appeals.
- Sabitu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 300
 Further to my Judgment and Reasons issued on February 23, 2021 (2021 FC 165), the Court is addressing the following Certified questions.
- Skibsted v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change), 2021 FC 301
 The Bank Swallow is a small bird – the smallest of the swallow species in North America. It builds its nests by burrowing into the steep banks of rivers or other similar terrain. In 2013, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) determined that the Bank Swallow is a “threatened” species under the Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29 [SARA] because “[t]his widespread species has shown a severe long-term decline amounting to a loss of 98% of its Canadian population over the last 40 years” (COSEWIC Report, Application Record at p 23). The Bank Swallow was officially listed as a threatened species under SARA in November 2017.
- Craig v. Niro, 2021 ONSC 2588
- R. v. Klimowicz, 2021 ONSC 2589
- Ritchie v. Castlepoint Greybrook Sterling Inc., 2021 ONCA 214
- Goldentuler v. Simmons Dasilva LLP, 2021 ONCA 219
- Intact Insurance Company v Parsons, 2021 ABCA 123
- Katz v. Hindrea, 2021 ONSC 2532
- Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65
 This appeal and its companion cases (see Bell Canada v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 SCC 66), provide this Court with an opportunity to re-examine its approach to judicial review of administrative decisions....
- 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...
- 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. 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?...
- Douez v. Facebook, Inc., 411 DLR (4th) 434
 Forum selection clauses purport to oust the jurisdiction of otherwise competent courts in favour of a foreign jurisdiction. To balance contractual freedom with the public good in having local courts adjudicate certain claims, courts have developed a test to...
- 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...
- Saadati v. Moorhead,  1 SCR 543
 This appeal, which arises from a motor vehicle accident in British Columbia, concerns principally the application of the common law of negligence to claims for mental injury. A trial judge awarded damages for mental injury to the appellant, Mohsen Saadati, on the ...
- R. v. Nur,  N.R. TBEd. AP.010
 McLachlin, C.J.C. (LeBel, Abella, Cromwell, Karakatsanis and Gascon, JJ., concurring) : Gun-related crime poses grave danger to Canadians. Parliament has therefore chosen to prohibit some weapons outright, while restricting the possession of others. The Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46,...
- Deloitte & Touche v. Livent Inc. (Receiver of), 2017 SCC 63
 This appeal provides the Court with an opportunity to affirm the analytical framework by which liability may be imposed in cases of negligent misrepresentation or performance of a service by an auditor....