- Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (59844)
- Supreme Court of British Columbia (52014)
- Federal Court (36223)
- Supreme Court of Canada (26000)
- Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (25100)
- Ontario Court of Appeal (21667)
- Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan (17209)
- Court of Appeal of British Columbia (16610)
- Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (14887)
- Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (12714)
- Court of Appeal (Alberta) (12387)
- Federal Court of Appeal (Canada) (11034)
- Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (9598)
- Ontario Court of Justice (9266)
- Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Trial Division (8374)
- Provincial Court (Alberta) (7206)
- Court of Appeal of New Brunswick (6274)
- Court of Appeal (Manitoba) (5954)
- Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan (5740)
- Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (3797)
- Newfoundland Court of Appeal (2632)
- Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (2574)
- Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (1506)
- Provincial Court of Nova Scotia (1144)
- Small Claims Court of Nova Scotia (1044)
- Provincial Court of Manitoba (1018)
- Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories (906)
- Tax Court of Canada (704)
- Territorial Court of Yukon (682)
- Provincial Court of New Brunswick (677)
- Nunavut Court of Justicie (351)
- Court of Appeal (Yukon Territory) (263)
- Territorial Court of the Northwest Territories (218)
- Court of Appeal for the Northwest Territories (123)
- Nova Scotia Probate Court (108)
- Court of Appeal of Nunavaut (82)
- Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island (70)
- Provincial Court of British Columbia (22)
- Arabambi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 98
 This is an application under s 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA], for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada [RPD], dated November 14, 2018 [Decision], denying the Applicants’ refugee and person in need of protection claims under ss 96 and 97 of the IRPA.
- Rendon Segovia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 99
 In this judicial review, the Applicants, a family of four from Mexico, challenge the refusal of their refugee claim appeal. After having read their submissions, and then upon hearing oral arguments, Applicants’ counsel persuaded me that reviewable errors occurred, which require me to send this appeal back to the tribunal for redetermination. I advised the parties that written reasons would follow. These are the reasons promised.
- Qureshi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 88
 The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan. She was born there in 1943. She lived in the United States from 1998 until 2009 but she has lived in Canada since February 2009.
- L.A.A. v. W.J.V., 2020 NBCA 1
- Abolupe v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 90
 This is the judicial review of a decision by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), dated April 29, 2019, confirming the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), pursuant to s 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (IRPA), and concluding that the Applicant is neither a Convention Refugee nor person in need of protection pursuant to ss 96 and 97 of IRPA, respectively.
- Ebrahimshani v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 89
 This is an application for judicial review of a decision by a visa officer with the Visa Section of the Embassy of Canada in Warsaw, Poland, denying the Applicant’s application, pursuant to s 100(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (IRP Regs), for permanent residence in the self-employed persons class.
- Calle Henao v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 84
 The principal applicant, Eliana Maria Calle Henao, and her minor daughter are citizens of Colombia. They claim to have a well-founded fear of persecution in Colombia by the Urabeños, a neo-paramilitary group that is heavily involved in drug trafficking. The group allegedly attempted to extort money from the principal applicant’s ex-husband’s parents. When her former in-laws did not pay up as demanded, they were murdered in July 2017 in their home in Cartago. The group then turned its attention to the principal applicant, her ex-husband and their daughter.
- Wallbridge v. Brunning, 2020 ONSC 215
- Rathwell-Howland v Howland, 2020 ONSC 390
- Asfar v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, 2020 ONCA 31
- 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. 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. Charles (S.),  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,...
- 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...
- R. v. Paterson, 347 CCC (3d) 280
 This appeal raises three distinct issues: (1) the applicability of the common law confessions rule to statements tendered in a voir dire under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ; (2) whether, on the facts of this case, exigent circumstances, within the...
- 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....
- Carter v. Can. (A.G.) (SCC), JE 2015-245
 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 ...
- 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...