Hughes v. Canada (Human Rights Commission)
| Jurisdiction | Federal Jurisdiction (Canada) |
| Court | Federal Court (Canada) |
| Citation | 2020 FC 986 |
| Date | 20 October 2020 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
15 practice notes
-
Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Videotron Ltd.
...decision must be afforded deference, especially on factually suffused questions, see Hughes v Canada (Human Rights Commission), 2020 FC 986 [per Little J] at para 67 [Hughes]; Sawridge Band v R, 2001 FCA 338, at para 11; and Merck & Co v Apotex Inc., 2003 FCA 438, at para 12. [26] Video......
-
Carreau v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 1268
...Telesystems Public Joint Stock Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 181 at para 14; Hughes v Canada (Human Rights Commission), 2020 FC 986 at para 67; Canada v Easter, 2024 FCA 176 at para 42). [84] A case management judge’s powers pursuant to Rule 385(1) of the Rules are very broad......
-
Rovi Guides, Inc. v. BCE Inc.
...decision must be afforded deference, especially on factually suffused questions, see Hughes v Canada (Human Rights Commission), 2020 FC 986 [per Little J] at para 67 [Hughes]; Sawridge Band v R, 2001 FCA 338, at para 11; and Merck & Co v Apotex Inc., 2003 FCA 438, at para 12. [25] Bell ......
-
Ge v. Canada (National Revenue), 2025 FC 1205
...FCA 127). [27] Mr. Justice Little of this Court explained the rationale of the principle in Hughes v Canada (Human Rights Commission), 2020 FC 986 at para 46, as [46] A new argument made first in reply that does not respond to an argument by the respondent and should have been raised in the......
Get Started for Free
18 cases
-
Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Videotron Ltd.
...judge’s decision must be afforded deference, especially on factually suffused questions, see Hughes v Canada (Human Rights Commission), 2020 FC 986 [per Little J] at para 67 [Hughes]; Sawridge Band v R, 2001 FCA 338, at para 11; and Merck & Co v Apotex Inc., 2003 FCA 438, at para 12. [2......
-
Carreau v. Canada (Attorney General)
...Telesystems Public Joint Stock Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 181 at para 14; Hughes v Canada (Human Rights Commission), 2020 FC 986 at para 67; Canada v Easter, 2024 FCA 176 at para 42). [84] A case management judge’s powers pursuant to Rule 385(1) of the Rules are very broad......
-
Rovi Guides, Inc. v. BCE Inc.
...judge’s decision must be afforded deference, especially on factually suffused questions, see Hughes v Canada (Human Rights Commission), 2020 FC 986 [per Little J] at para 67 [Hughes]; Sawridge Band v R, 2001 FCA 338, at para 11; and Merck & Co v Apotex Inc., 2003 FCA 438, at para 12. [2......
-
Ge v. Canada (National Revenue)
...FCA 127). [27] Mr. Justice Little of this Court explained the rationale of the principle in Hughes v Canada (Human Rights Commission), 2020 FC 986 at para 46, as [46] A new argument made first in reply that does not respond to an argument by the respondent and should have been raised in the......
Get Started for Free