Canadian coverage, focused on disputes and strategy, with verified short holdings, original analysis and links to the underlying sources. A publication date isn't the same as a decision date. The dates below identify which is shown.
31 verified publications. Showing the 31 most recent.
Although the permit applicant and municipality opposed a postponement, the Tribunal adjourned the peat extraction appeal so affected residents could obtain counsel, finding that no party would suffer significant prejudice from the agreed new timetable. The decision illustrates that procedural fairness can outweigh pressure to proceed quickly when participants need a meaningful opportunity to prepare.
The BC Court of Appeal refused to vary a chambers order denying a stay of a permanent injunction preventing unauthorized building work and interference with a municipal demolition order. The applicant showed no error of law, principle or fact, and the court held that the appeal of the injunction couldn't be used to relitigate the previously adjudicated demolition order.
The BC Supreme Court refused summary judgment on a builder’s unpaid construction account because separating it from the owner’s substantial counterclaim risked inconsistent factual findings. Both contractual claims were left for trial, and the court made no final determination about which party was owed money.
The BC Supreme Court certified a class proceeding over allegations that Google Photos collected and used facial biometric information without valid consent, finding a workable common-issues process despite the need to decide some questions individually. Certification determines whether the claims may proceed collectively and does not establish that Google breached privacy law.
The BC Court of Appeal held that commencing a proposed class action does not itself suspend limitation periods, because the province’s Class Proceedings Act provides suspension from the filing of a certification application. It upheld striking a later flood-loss lawsuit as time-barred even though the claimants had relied on an earlier proposed class proceeding.
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal refused to halt a recruitment discrimination complaint merely because the Armed Forces challenged the Commission's referral in Federal Court. Ordinary litigation costs, reputational concerns and parallel judicial review were not exceptional reasons to delay the hearing.
The Federal Court ordered a taxpayer to produce requested audit records and complete expenditure worksheets after he provided no records and offered unsupported reasons for refusing. The order required compliance within 30 days and imposed $3,750 in costs.
The Ontario Court of Appeal set aside a bankruptcy transfer at undervalue order after finding that the trustee's lawyers had improperly acted against a former client. The firm was disqualified, a new hearing was ordered and the transfer dispute remains to be decided.
The Federal Court struck a judicial review application that challenged a Canada Recovery Benefit decision supposedly made in December 2025. The identified CRA letter actually addressed a different benefit, and amendment couldn't cure the error.
The BC Supreme Court dismissed a non-party’s application to narrow a forestry blockade injunction. No material change or overlooked issue justified revisiting the order, and the police clause did not create new detention powers.
The Federal Court struck a damages claim against Canada over earlier labour-board rulings. The pleading failed to establish Crown liability or a separate misfeasance claim, and it repeated issues already decided.
An Alberta appeal judge refused to extend time in a wrongful dismissal lawsuit because the delay lacked a sufficient explanation and the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success. Permission to appeal was also required and refused.
The Alberta Labour Relations Board refused to dismiss a union certification application because of delays while federal and provincial authorities disputed jurisdiction. Changes in the workforce did not justify discarding the application before a representation vote.
The Alberta Court of Appeal refused Mount Royal University's request to appeal a labour board decision requiring an arbitrator to reconsider a dismissed professor's remedy. Procedural fairness and academic freedom figured in the decision.
The Alberta Court of Appeal rescinded a case management officer's refusal to schedule an appeal, holding that the officer could not effectively dismiss it on mootness grounds. The Court separately refused an order restricting public access to evidence.
The Supreme Court dismissed Hryniak's appeal and upheld summary judgment for civil fraud under Ontario's Rule 20. A trial wasn't necessary where the expanded summary judgment process permitted a fair and just determination on the record.
Uber v. Heller illustrates how a standard contract's dispute clause can become unenforceable when its up-front costs and bargaining circumstances effectively block a legal remedy.
The Federal Courts Rules generally require corporations to appear through a solicitor. Leave for an officer to represent the company is a special-circumstances exception, not a matter of preference.
Under the Federal Courts Rules, certain written settlement offers can affect the costs ordered after judgment. The timing and wording of the offer matter as much as the eventual result.
The Yukon Supreme Court approved a mineral-interest sale, ended an unsuccessful receivership bidding process and ordered time-limited protection for bids.
The Yukon Supreme Court reduced a mine receiver's care and maintenance powers after a contractor assumed those duties, retaining general and emergency powers.
The B.C. Court of Appeal permitted 2 faculty associations to intervene jointly on limited terms but rejected a different intervention that would broaden the appeal. The ruling didn't decide the validity of the underlying resolutions.
The Supreme Court dismissed Uber's appeal and held its mandatory Netherlands arbitration clause unconscionable. Its cost and the driver's bargaining position made the prescribed process practically inaccessible.
The Supreme Court required Lombard to defend the contractor because the pleadings raised a possibility of covered property damage. A duty to defend isn't a finding that the underlying liability or eventual indemnity has been established.
The Supreme Court interpreted a standard builders' risk policy to cover replacement of windows damaged by negligent cleaning. The faulty workmanship exclusion removed the cost of redoing the cleaning, not the resulting physical damage.
The BC Court of Appeal held that a construction owner's contractual waiver didn't extend to a consultant engaged further down the contracting chain. The ruling concerned contractual risk allocation, not a finding of negligence or insurance coverage.
Legal changes are often discussed publicly long before anyone signs an order bringing them into force. The Northwest Territories' 2026 consultation concerning correctional staffing illustrates why careful readers need to
An institution may have a legitimate reason to protect privileged legal advice. It still has to know what records it has and which legal basis actually justifies withholding them. In Report A 2026 031,
BC's 50 employee reporting threshold increases public information about compensation, but a reported gap is not a legal finding of discrimination.
Employers can be responsible for what happens at work, but that doesn't always protect the employee who carried it out. The distinction matters long before anyone reaches a courtroom.
A strong legal position can still produce a poor commercial outcome, especially when litigation takes over the decisions that should be driving the business.
See how a weekly briefing brings relevant developments together. Choose your divisions and jurisdictions before deciding whether membership is useful for you.
A preview doesn't enroll you in email. Optional delivery requires a separate choice.