• Canadian Caselaw



Latest documents

  • Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation v. Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation, 2019 FC 813

    [1]  Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation [OLG] seeks judicial review of a decision of the First Nations Tax Commission [the Commission], which approved a law made by the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation [the First Nation] imposing a fee for the sewer and waste water treatment services for a casino operated by OLG. In a nutshell, OLG argues that the fee imposed lacks a nexus with the projected cost of the service and that the report provided by the First Nation to justify the fee is not supported by adequate financial data.

  • De Sousa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 818

    [1]  The three applicants in this case constitute a young family that came to Canada in 2012. They gained access to Canada through visitor visas. However, their intention was quite different from being merely visitors. The record shows that the principal applicant, Joao Henrique Silveira De Sousa, established in June 2012 his own roofing enterprise, two months after he had arrived in this country.

  • Adnan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 819

    [1]  This is a judicial review application made pursuant to Section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 [the Act] concerning a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] of October 12, 2018. The decision under review is with respect to an appeal from a decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] (November 30, 2016). The decision under review found that Mr. Adnan is not a refugee or a person in need of protection (Sections 96 and 97 of the Act).

  • Tearlab Corporation v. I-MED Pharma Inc., 2019 FCA 179

    [1]  The appellant TearLab Corporation (TearLab) appeals from a judgment of the Federal Court (Manson J.) dated February 12, 2018 (Reasons), which dismissed TearLab’s action for infringement against the respondent I-MED Pharma Inc. (I-MED) with respect to Canadian Patent No. 2,494,540 (the ‘540 Patent). The Federal Court held that I-MED infringed certain claims of the ‘540 Patent, but that these claims were invalid due to anticipation and obviousness.

  • Popov v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 177

    [1]  The applicant, Mr. Alexandre Popov, seeks judicial review of a decision of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board (the Board) dated May 31, 2018 (2018 FPLREB 49), which dismissed his application for an extension of time to refer a grievance to the Board for adjudication under paragraph 61(b) of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Regulations, SOR/2005-79 [Regulations].

  • Jim Shot Both Sides v. Canada, 2019 FC 789
  • Kooner v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 806

    [1]  This is an application for judicial review brought under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] for a decision rendered by the Immigration and Refugee Board, Immigration Division [ID] regarding the inadmissibility of the Applicant under paragraph 36(1)(a) of the IRPA.

  • Ghirme v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 FC 805

    [1]  In July 2017, the Applicant Tekle Kefle Ghirme, a citizen of Eritrea, filed a refugee claim.  After interviewing the Applicant, an Enforcement Officer (the “Officer”) with the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”) prepared a report under section 44(1) of the Immigration and Refugee and Protection Act, SC 2001 c 27 (“IRPA”) finding that the Applicant is inadmissible to Canada under s. 35(1)(a) of the IRPA.  Section 35(1)(a) of the IRPA establishes that a foreign national is inadmissible to Canada on grounds of violating human or international rights for committing an offence in sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, SC 2000, c 24.

  • Rahman v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 FC 807

    [1]  The Applicant, a citizen of Bangladesh, seeks judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Division (ID) Officer of the Immigration and Refugee Board finding him inadmissible to Canada on security grounds. For the reasons that follow this judicial review is dismissed as the Officer undertook the proper analysis, based his findings on the evidence, and made a reasonable decision. There are no grounds for this Court to intervene.

  • Shaka v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 798

    [1]  On August 15, 2017, the applicant and his brother presented themselves at the Cornwall, Ontario Port of Entry.  Both are citizens of Burundi.  Both had been in the United States on student visas.  Both said they were now seeking refugee protection in Canada.  Their grounds for seeking protection were essentially the same.  From that point on, however, their respective claims for protection took very different paths.

Featured documents

  • R. v. Marakah, 142 WCB (2d) 490

    [1]                              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. Jordan, AZ-51302609

    [1]                              Timely justice is one of the hallmarks of a free and democratic society. In the criminal law context, it takes on special significance. Section 11 (b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  attests to this, in that it guarantees the right of accused persons ...

  • Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. British Columbia, [2017] SCJ No 32 (QL)

    [1]                              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

    [1]                              In R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, [2016] 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

    [1]                              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...

  • Agraira v. Can. (SCC), [2013] SCJ No 36 (QL)

    [1] 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....

  • Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corp., 2017 SCC 30

    [1]                              Ian Stewart worked in a mine operated by the Elk Valley Coal Corporation, driving a loader.  The mine operations were dangerous, and maintaining a safe worksite was a matter of great importance to the employer and employees. The employer implemented an Alcohol,...

  • Carter v. Can. (A.G.) (SCC), JE 2015-245

    [1] By the Court : It is a crime in Canada to assist another person in ending her own life. As a result, people who are grievously and irremediably ill cannot seek a physician's assistance in dying and may be condemned to a life of severe and intolerable suffering. A person facing this prospect has ...

  • R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64

    [1]                              Sentencing remains one of the most delicate stages of the criminal justice process in Canada. Although this task is governed by ss. 718 et seq. of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46 , and although the objectives set out in those sections guide the courts and...

  • Douez v. Facebook, Inc., 411 DLR (4th) 434

    [1]                              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...