- Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (58762)
- Supreme Court of British Columbia (51647)
- Federal Court (35982)
- Supreme Court of Canada (25981)
- Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (24878)
- Ontario Court of Appeal (21465)
- Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan (17131)
- Court of Appeal of British Columbia (16492)
- Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (14799)
- Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (12646)
- Court of Appeal (Alberta) (12263)
- Federal Court of Appeal (Canada) (10993)
- Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (9563)
- Ontario Court of Justice (9033)
- Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Trial Division (8328)
- Provincial Court (Alberta) (7124)
- Court of Appeal of New Brunswick (6252)
- Court of Appeal (Manitoba) (5931)
- Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan (5701)
- Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (3776)
- Newfoundland Court of Appeal (2621)
- Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (2555)
- Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (1500)
- Provincial Court of Nova Scotia (1117)
- Small Claims Court of Nova Scotia (1033)
- Provincial Court of Manitoba (1003)
- Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories (906)
- Tax Court of Canada (677)
- Territorial Court of Yukon (671)
- Provincial Court of New Brunswick (669)
- Nunavut Court of Justicie (350)
- Court of Appeal (Yukon Territory) (261)
- 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 (81)
- Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island (57)
- Provincial Court of British Columbia (22)
- R. v. Rafilovich, 2019 SCC 51
 Do the proceeds of crime provisions of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (“Code ”), require courts to give with one hand, only to take away with the other? The appellant, Yulik Rafilovich, applied for and was returned funds that the state had initially seized from him as potential proceeds of crime, because he needed the funds to pay for his legal defence to charges related to drug trafficking. After he pled guilty, the Crown asked the sentencing judge to impose a fine on Mr. Rafilovich under the forfeiture provisions of the Code , on the basis that by using his returned funds for his defence, he had thereby benefitted from the proceeds of crime. In my view, Parliament did not intend these provisions to operate in such an inconsistent manner.
- He v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1395
 This judicial review concerns a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] finding the Applicant not to be a refugee or in need of protection. Its decision was based principally on the RAD finding certain documents within the application to be fraudulent.
- Huseynov v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1392
 This application judicially reviews a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division, or RAD, confirming the finding of the Refugee Protection Division, or RPD, that the Applicant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. For the following reasons, I am dismissing the application.
- Maclean v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 277
 The applicant, Mr. Randy MacLean, seeks judicial review of a decision of the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal, dated October 30, 2017, refusing his application to rescind or amend one or both of two Pension Appeals Board decisions on the basis that the application was made beyond the one-year limitation period established by subsection 66(2) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act, S.C. 2005, c. 34 (the Act).
- Beima v. Canada (National Revenue), 2019 FCA 280
 Mr. Beima appeals the order dated February 15, 2018 of the Federal Court (per McDonald J.) in file T-2047-14. The Federal Court found Mr. Beima in contempt for not complying with a production order under section 231.7 of the Income Tax Act R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp). In an exercise of discretion favourable to Mr. Beima, the Federal Court did not impose any penalty for his contempt.
- Kufsky v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 254
 Michelle Kufsky (the “Appellant”) appeals from a third party assessment issued by the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) pursuant to section 160 of the Income Tax Act, RSC 1985, c 1 (5th Supp) (the “Act”) in respect of a tax debt owed by Mon Refuge Décor Inc. (the “Corporation”).
- Pao v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1397
 Ms. Jun Yuan Pao (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of a decision of Mr. Alvin Fell, a Program Support Officer (the “Officer”) employed with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC”), refusing her application for the issuance of a Permanent Resident Card.
- Elroumi v. Shenzhen Top China Imp & Exp Co. Ltd., 2019 FCA 281
 The Appellants appeal from the orders of the Federal Court in Elroumi v. Shenzhen Top China Imp & Exp Co., Ltd China, 2018 FC 633 (per Gagné, J.) in which the Federal Court granted the motions of Entrepot Canchi and CMA CGM to strike out the Appellants’ claim against Entrepot Canchi and Entrepot Canchi’s third-party claim against CMA CGM. The Appellants also seek an order from this Court adding CMA CGM as a defendant in their action before the Federal Court even though they did not make a motion for joinder before the Federal Court.
- Balderramos v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1391
 Orlin Rafael Rivera Balderramos [Mr. Balderramos], his spouse, Sinia Coello Castejon [Ms. Castejon] and two of their children [collectively referred to as “the Applicants”] seek judicial review, pursuant to section 112 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [Act], from the October 12, 2018 decision of a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment [PRRA] Officer. The Officer concluded the Applicants would not be subject to a risk of persecution, risk of torture, risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Act, if returned to Honduras. The Officer concluded there exists a viable Internal Flight Alternative [IFA] in La Paz or La Esperanza, Honduras. For the reasons set out below, I allow the application for judicial review, set aside the decision of October 12, 2018 and refer the matter back to a different PRRA Officer for re-determination.
- Whitefish Lake First Nation v. Grey, 2019 FCA 275
 The appellant appeals from the order of the Federal Court dated January 22, 2019 in Court file number 18-T-79 extending the time for the respondent to commence an application for judicial review of the decision of an Election Appeal Arbitrator affirming the results of the election of the Chief of the appellant First Nation.
- 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...