Can CanLii A.I. create expert reports for Court? When? What Can it provide lawyers with? Apparently at least case summaries. But not other A.I.
- Stephen Morris
- Jun 12
- 33 min read
CanLII AI does not generate standalone "expert reports," analytical briefs, or legal submissions that you can hand directly to a judge.
As a lawyer, you cannot treat an AI platform as an automated co-counsel. Instead, the platform functions as an advanced, highly specialized navigation engine. The proper, legally compliant workflow for a Canadian practitioner utilizing CanLII AI looks like this:
The Permissible Scope of CanLII AI Tools
You can use the platform's artificial intelligence features for two primary functions:
AI-Generated Case Summaries: You can use the AI-generated summaries at the top of case landing pages to quickly screen a judgment. This helps you determine its procedural history, the intentional torts or statutes discussed, and whether it is worth a deep reading.
Algorithmic Precedent Mapping (Search+): You can input natural language queries to generate optimized lists of highly relevant precedents. The AI uncovers connections between cases that standard keyword searches might miss.
The Line Between "Research Aid" and "Court Submission"
Once the AI provides you with that list of precedents or case summaries, the automated portion of your workflow must end. To pull those authorities into an admissible court record, you must transition to traditional legal engineering:
Extraction, Not Copy-Pasting: You must open the original, static text or PDF of the judgment. You cannot copy and paste an AI-generated summary into your factum as if it were the law itself.
The Verification Mandate: You must manually read the raw text to verify that the legal principles, specific dictionary definitions, or ratios actually say what the summary claims they say.
The Certification Sign-Off: In jurisdictions like Ontario, you must sign the mandatory Rule 4.06.1(2.1) Certification. By signing, you are personally certifying to the court that every single case on your list is authentic, real, and accurately cited.
The Bottom Line
If a judge sees a document formatted as an "AI Report" or an unverified summary printout handed up to the bench, they are legally required by active practice directions to ignore or strike it to protect the integrity of the record.
CanLII AI is a highly respected tool because it builds an incredibly precise map of precedents; but the heavy lifting of pulling the raw text, applying human legal analysis, verifying the context, and certifying the authenticity is a professional obligation that rests entirely on your shoulders.
When you ask a search tool or an AI assistant to find "CanLII AI law," the database relies on its search algorithms to pull cases where artificial intelligence intersects with the court system. The actual judgments returned by the system demonstrate that Canadian courts do not accept automated AI outputs as self-contained legal briefs. Instead, the judiciary treats unverified AI materials as a severe liability, frequently resulting in punitive cost awards, struck pleadings, and formal reprimands.
A detailed breakdown of how Canadian courts actually view and handle these submissions based on recent case law reveals the structural realities of the legal system:
1. The Total Rejection of "AI-Generated" Authorities
Courts will not accept any brief, case list, or summary report that relies on unverified generative AI outputs. The cases provided illustrate the strict consequences for attempting to submit them:
Financial Penalties for Flawed Submissions: In Halton (Regional Municipality) v. Rewa (2026), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice penalized a self-represented litigant with $15,000 in costs for submitting non-existent legal authorities produced by generative AI and failing to correct those errors. The court emphasized the severity of attempting to mislead the bench with unverified, automated summaries.
Removal of Records from the Court File: In National Indigenous Fisheries Institute v. Canada (2026), the Federal Court reiterated that citing fake, AI-fabricated cases in court filings constitutes an abuse of process and is tantamount to making a false statement to the court. The court ruled that stripping an abusive motion record from the file completely is a necessary sanction to preserve the integrity of the administration of justice.
Purging Contempt Through Immediate Admission: In Ko v. Li (2025), a lawyer narrowly avoided formal contempt of court proceedings after submitting an AI factum riddled with "hallucinations". The lawyer was forced to formally apologize, completely withdraw the offending factum, commit to remedial ethics and AI training, and agree not to charge the client for any of the deficient work.
2. In What Form Are Documents Accepted?
The only form in which legal submissions are accepted in Canadian courtrooms is the traditional, strictly formatted, human-verified legal framework. If a practitioner utilizes CanLII AI tools (such as plain-language search optimization or automated text synthesis) to assist their initial research, the final output must take the following shape:
The Mandatory Rule 4.06.1 (2.1) Certification: In Ontario, and mirrored across federal guidelines, factums must include a mandatory certification of authenticity. This rule was explicitly enacted to counter the risks of generative AI hallucinations by legally forcing human advocates to certify that every case cited is real and accurately quoted.
The Strict Rules of Evidence: AI-generated summaries cannot bypass the laws of evidence. As seen in traditional procedural cases like Canadian Urethane v. Demilec Inc. (2023), courts will routinely reject submissions that are built on unverified or hearsay-laden records where the core declarant has not provided a sworn, verified affidavit.
Mandatory Use-Disclosure: Per current Federal Court practice directions, if generative AI is used to draft or compile content for a legal document (including factums or applications), the litigant is legally required to include a clear, explicit Declaration of AI Use in the very first paragraph of the filing. Failing to disclose this usage is treated as a breach of candour to the court.
Why CanLII AI Records Cannot Save a Deficient Filing
While tools like CanLII's research assistants are highly advanced and restricted to an authoritative, closed-corpus legal substrate, the system itself is an index, not a dynamic lawyer.
The ongoing litigation noted in legal literature—such as CanLII v. Caseway AI in the Supreme Court of British Columbia—underscores that the raw, underlying data of webpage listings and case texts are strictly protected to prevent the automated, unchecked rewriting of primary law.
[CanLII AI / Search Engine] ───► Generates an Index, Summary, or Lead Link
│
▼
[Inadmissible Court Form] ◄─── Copying & Pasting the AI Text Directly
│
▼
[Admissible Court Form] ◄─── Manually opening the original case text,
checking the static PDF, and signing the
Rule 4.06.1 Certification of Authenticity.
Ultimately, judges "ignore" or strike raw CanLII AI reports because a computer algorithm cannot swear an affidavit, cannot sign a Certificate of Authenticity, and cannot be held legally or professionally liable for an error. The Canadian judiciary accepts only human-verified, manually cross-referenced primary sources that are explicitly declared, signed, and backed by the personal professional liability of the advocate submitting them.
The reason CanLII stands out as a universally respected framework for AI development in Canadian law is fundamentally a matter of architecture, data custody, and regulatory endorsement.
While generic large language models (like standard ChatGPT or Claude) search the open web and "hallucinate" fictional cases, CanLII's AI systems—developed alongside its software subsidiary, Lexum—operate under an entirely different engineering paradigm.
The structural mechanics of CanLII’s AI explain why it is treated as a highly credible tool by the Canadian legal community, and how it avoids the terminal credibility traps highlighted in Mazaheri v. LSO:
1. Closed-Corpus Boundaries (Zero Open-Web Hallucinations)
Generic AI tools pull data from unpredictable internet sources, meaning they guess what the law is based on patterns of text. In contrast, CanLII’s AI models are strictly bounded by a closed-corpus data architecture.
· Vetted Document Substrate: The tool searches exclusively within CanLII’s verified database of over 3.2 million primary source documents—comprising official Canadian court decisions, legislative statutes, regulations, and peer-reviewed legal commentaries.
· Traceable Authority: Because the AI cannot look outside this ring-fenced legal environment, it cannot invent a non-existent case out of thin air. Every single reference, summary, or keyword it extracts links directly to a live, official, and static URL on the CanLII platform.
2. CanLII Search+: Algorithmic Boolean Translation
Launched in early 2026, CanLII Search+ acts as a reliable intermediary between plain-language drafting and rigorous database querying.
· Instead of letting an AI interpret and output an unverified answer, Search+ allows practitioners to enter complex legal questions in plain natural language.
· The system immediately translates that query into an elaborate, structured
Boolean search string (visible to the user). It then forces the database to pull real primary law, displaying a contextual analysis and assigning a relevance score to the top 25 actual cases matching that precise parameter.
3. "Screening Tools" vs. "Substantive Advocacy"
The ultimate reason courts respect CanLII’s AI integrations—such as its massive bilingual case law summary rollouts (spanning over 950,000 documents across provincial jurisdictions)—is that CanLII explicitly defines its AI as a screening and navigation aid, not a replacement for human legal analysis.
· According to extensive independent user studies conducted by Lux Insights, lawyers rely on CanLII’s AI summaries primarily to quickly screen massive volumes of text, determine whether a case warrants an in-depth reading, and capture procedural histories at a glance.
· CanLII itself mandates a "human-in-the-loop" approach: its AI systems are trained and adjusted continuously by legal experts and data scientists to ensure strict terminology alignment across Canada's bilingual framework.
Reconciliation: Why the Mazaheri Trap Still Applies
The warning from Mazaheri v. LSO (2025) and Sinkova v. Canada (2026) remains completely unaffected by the power of CanLII’s AI tools. CanLII’s user guides explicitly post a non-negotiable warning: Verification is required; only the original legal documents are authoritative.
CanLII AI Tools (Search+ / AI Summaries) │ ▼ [Automated Context Extraction] Generates Boolean Mapping & Quick Excerpts │ ▼ CRITICAL HUMAN STEP: Advocate clicks the live link ──► Verifies against static PDF/Text │ ▼ Safe, Certified Court FilingEven when using CanLII’s trusted platform, if a practitioner simply copies and pastes an AI-generated text summary or relies blindly on a compiled list of case descriptions without manually opening the raw, un-synthesized judgments to confirm the text matches, they are committing a severe professional error.
CanLII AI is highly respected because it provides a map directly to the true, verified source material; but if an advocate treats the map as the evidence itself, they will still run afoul of mandatory court certification rules.
Based on the rapid evolution of Canadian case law between 2024 and 2026, the issue is not that the judiciary lacks the computer literacy to execute or understand AI processes. Rather, judges are actively rejecting, penalizing, or ignoring these submissions because of a profound systemic conflict between generative AI outputs and the strict evidentiary standards required in a court of law.
When judges "ignore" or strike CanLII AI or generative AI records from a file, they are not acting out of technical ignorance; they are applying established legal principles regarding the authenticity and verification of evidence.
Here is how the current case law accounts for this phenomenon and why the Canadian legal system treats unverified AI materials with extreme skepticism.
1. Why Judges "Ignore" or Reject AI-Generated Records
In Canadian jurisprudence, a judge's primary duty is to ensure the reliability and accuracy of the evidentiary record. The recent case law demonstrates exactly why judges refuse to accept unverified AI outputs:
· Fabrication and "Hallucinations": Multiple high-level decisions have established that generative AI models frequently fabricate entire case histories, quotations, and statutory provisions. In Sinkova v. Canada (2026), the Federal Court explicitly ruled that when submissions contain fake or non-existent cases to an extent that compromises reliability, the court must remove the materials from the file entirely.
· The Inherent Risk of the Material: In Balogun v. WSC No. 382 (2025), the tribunal explicitly noted that generative AI usage in a legal context creates an inherent systemic risk because the underlying large language models are structurally prone to creating false submissions.
· A Lack of Evidentiary Value: Summaries, synthesized text, or analytical briefs produced by an AI platform are classified as argument or interpretation, not factual evidence. As clarified in Arora v. Canadian National Railway (2026), an individual's or an AI's assessment of a dispute does not constitute fresh factual evidence.
2. Mandatory Declaration Rules (The Regulatory Barrier)
To prevent unverified AI data from polluting the administration of justice, Canadian courts and tribunals have implemented strict, non-negotiable Practice Directions.
· The Certification Requirement: Under rules like Ontario's Rule 4.06.1(2.1), anyone submitting a factum must explicitly include a certificate declaring that the cases cited as precedents are authentic and real.
· The Consequence of Non-Disclosure: If a party or lawyer utilizes generative AI to build, synthesize, or pull case records and fails to explicitly declare its use, the court views this as a breach of candour. In Hussein v. Canada (2025), the Federal Court emphasized that the core triable issue is frequently not the use of AI itself, but the failure to declare that use to the court.
3. Why Canadian Lawyers Are Reluctant to Rely on Generative AI
The reason the "average Canadian lawyer" is hesitant to deploy generative AI tools for direct court submissions boils down to severe professional, financial, and disciplinary liabilities established by the courts:
· Personal Costs and Financial Penalties: Under Rule 57.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, courts are actively penalizing individuals and counsel who submit unverified AI materials. In Ko v. Li (2025), the court prohibited the lawyer from billing the client for any work associated with a deficient, AI-informed factum and mandated extensive remedial ethics training.
· Law Society Investigations: Judges are actively referring individuals who submit unverified or fabricated AI text to professional regulatory bodies. In Kapahi Real Estate Inc. (2026), even though counsel denied using AI to create false quotations, the Ontario Superior Court bypassed internal contempt proceedings and referred the matter directly to the Law Society for a formal investigation into the integrity of the submissions.
· Undermining Case Credibility: Presenting an AI-generated record that has not been manually cross-referenced against official, static reporter systems (like the raw CanLII database or Carswell) instantly destroys the advocate's credibility. The Law Society Tribunal in Mazaheri v. LSO (2025) confirmed that a litigant's reliance on flawed generative AI materials fundamentally undermines their credibility before the panel.
Summary of the Legal Reality
Judges do not ignore AI because they lack computer literacy; they reject it when it fails to comply with Rule 4.06.1(2.1), the May 7, 2024 Federal Practice Direction, or the core rules of evidence.
For an AI-generated CanLII record to be accepted by a Canadian court, every single line, citation, and legal proposition must be manually verified and certified against the official, un-synthesized court records, accompanied by an explicit declaration of AI assistance. Until a submission meets those foundational criteria of transparency and authenticity, the judiciary is legally required to disregard it to protect the integrity of the process.
SOURCES
1.
Halton (Regional Municipality) v. Rewa et al, 2026 ONSC 908 (CanLII)
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
2026-02-12 | 5 pages | cited by 1 document
AI-generated
The Court ordered $15,000 in costs against a self-represented litigant for misleading submissions, improper conduct, and abandoning a motion, emphasizing the seriousness of attempting to mislead the Court.
Practice and procedure
Procedure — Costs — Substantial indemnity — Whether costs thrown away should be awarded on a substantial indemnity basis after adjournment — Deliberate attempt to mislead the court with non‑existent legal authorities — Use of generative AI and failure to correct errors — Prior endorsement referenced, 2025 ONSC 4503 — Principles relied on, 2026 ONSC 866 — Costs ordered
Procedure — Costs assessment — Overlapping efforts — How to assess costs where tasks overlapped across three motions — Single anchoring affidavit and housekeeping submissions caused overlap — Lack of granular time breakdown warranted discount — Time for verifying flawed citations reasonably estimated — Substantial indemnity rates applied to reasonable hours — Costs discounted
Procedure — Costs — Abandonment of motion — Does abandonment expand costs thrown away to total responding efforts? — Failure to renew motion by court‑ordered deadline — Costs not limited to flawed factum research — Compensation for totality of responding efforts warranted — Late submissions accepted but immaterial to outcome — Costs fixed at $15,000
Show more
[…] COURT FILE NO.: 1665/17 DATE: 20260212 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO […] I understand that there may have been some technical administrative difficulties with the filing of those submissions, specifically in relation to the filing of an affidavit of service. […]
2.
National Indigenous Fisheries Institute v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans), 2026 FC 382 (CanLII)
Federal Court
2026-03-20 | 36 pages | cited by 3 documents
AI-generated
Indigenous peoples Judicial review Practice and procedure
Injunctions
Trade unions
Construction of statutes — Official Languages Act, s. 20(1)b)
Practice — Variation of time
[…] As the British Columbia Supreme Court recently stated, “[c]iting fake cases in court filings and other materials handed up to the court is an abuse of process and is tantamount to making a false statement to the court. […] In all of the circumstances, the removal of the Motion Record from the Court file is a very modest sanction. Removal of the abusive Motion Record from the Court file is necessary to preserve the integrity of the Court’s process and the administration of justice. […]
3.
Canadian Urethane v. Demilec Inc., 2023 ONSC 2234 (CanLII)
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
2023-04-13 | 13 pages
AI-generated
This case concerned whether a corporate employee could be held personally liable for actions performed in their professional capacity. The Court dismissed the claims against the employee, finding no personal liability as the alleged actions were conducted on behalf of the employer, and no independent tort was established.
Practice and procedure
Procedure — Summary judgment — Partial summary judgment — Rule 20.04 — Whether partial summary judgment should dismiss claims against employee and placeholder corporation — Factors from Butera v. Chown, Cairns LLP considered — Overlap with claims against employer weighed against injustice to improperly joined employee — No genuine issue requiring a trial — Claims against employee and placeholder corporation dismissed on partial summary judgment
Civil liability — Torts — Intentional interference with economic relations — Whether employee personally liable for acts done on behalf of employer — Standard from Montreal Trust Co. v. ScotiaMcLeod Inc. on employee liability — A.I. Enterprises Ltd. v. Bram Enterprises Ltd. requirements not pleaded or proven — Emails sent within job duties and approved by board — Personal liability not established
Evidence — Hearsay — Motion record sufficiency — Whether hearsay-laden evidence raises a genuine issue for trial — Hearsay about “CUFCA foam” and inferred personal venture untested and contradictory — No examination or affidavit from key declarant obtained — Best foot forward on summary judgment required — Record inadequate to prove alleged torts — Evidentiary record held insufficient
Show more
[…] COURT FILE NO.: CV-22-00666901 DATE: 20230413 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO […] It is hearsay that contradicts the earlier hearsay from Mr. Dalgleish contained in paragraphs 71-72 of Ms. Lalli-Reese’s affidavit. Demilec does not explain the contradiction. Demilec did not seek to examine Mr. Dalgleish or obtain an affidavit from him. […]
4.
Ko v. Li, 2025 ONSC 2965 (CanLII)
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
2025-05-20 | 14 pages | cited by 16 documents
AI-generated
A lawyer avoided contempt proceedings after citing fake AI-generated cases by admitting fault, apologizing, and committing to remedial measures, including ethics training and improved verification protocols. The Court deemed the matter resolved, emphasizing the importance of accurate legal submissions and the risks of unverified AI use in legal practice.
Criminal or statutory infractions Practice and procedure
Professional responsibility — Contempt of court — Lawyer's duties — Submission of factum containing fake case citations generated by artificial intelligence — Lawyer's responsibility to verify legal authorities before filing — Should a lawyer be held in contempt for relying on AI-generated "hallucinations"? — Contempt of court principles from R. v. Cohn — Lawyer's forthright acknowledgment and corrective actions deemed sufficient to purge contempt
Professional responsibility — Use of artificial intelligence in legal practice — Lawyer's professional obligations — Risks of AI hallucinations in legal submissions — Duty to ensure accuracy of legal authorities — Lawyer's undertaking to complete Continuing Professional Development training on AI and legal ethics — Framework for addressing professional misconduct involving AI tools
Civil procedure — Rules of Civil Procedure — Rule 4.06.1 (2.1) — Certification of authenticity of cited authorities in factums — Lawyer's failure to comply with mandatory certification rule — Does non-compliance with Rule 4.06.1 (2.1) constitute misconduct? — Rule enacted to address risks of AI hallucinations in legal submissions
Professional responsibility — Costs — Lawyer's billing practices — Prohibition on billing client for deficient factum containing fake case citations — Application of Rule 57.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — Lawyer's agreement not to charge client for work associated with deficient factum — Court's discretion to impose cost-related remedies for professional misconduct
Show more
[…] COURT FILE NO.: CV-25-00736891-00ES DATE: 20250520 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE […] [62] The expressions of accountability and regret, coupled with the withdrawal of the offending factum, purge any contempt of court that might have been found. I likely would not have been inclined to require Ms. Lee to file a new factum. […]
5.
R. v. Villota, 2002 CanLII 49650 (ON SC)
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
2002-03-01 | 45 pages | cited by 61 documents
AI-generated
The Court found that justices of the peace breached natural justice by denying the Crown the opportunity to make submissions during bail hearings. This violated the audi alteram partem principle, constituting jurisdictional error. However, certiorari was denied due to delay, alternative remedies, and the respondents’ ongoing compliance with bail conditions.
Criminal or statutory infractions Practice and procedure Rights and freedoms
Criminal procedure — Bail hearings — Audi alteram partem — Denial of Crown submissions — Justices of the peace prematurely announcing decisions without hearing the Crown’s arguments — Did the justices of the peace breach procedural fairness in bail hearings? — Principles of natural justice require both parties to be heard before a decision is rendered
Rights and freedoms — Charter of Rights — Section 11(e) — Right to reasonable bail — Breach of procedural fairness — Denial of Crown’s right to make submissions — Does the denial of the Crown’s right to be heard violate the principles of fundamental justice? — Charter guarantees procedural fairness in bail determinations
Evidence — Bail hearings — Procedural requirements — Reverse onus provisions — Improper application of evidentiary standards — Did the justices of the peace fail to properly consider evidence and statutory requirements under the Criminal Code? — Evidence in bail hearings must meet statutory and procedural standards
Statutory interpretation — Criminal Code — Sections 515 and 518 — Procedural requirements for bail hearings — Certiorari as a remedy for jurisdictional errors — Is certiorari appropriate to address breaches of statutory procedural requirements? — Certiorari applies where jurisdictional errors undermine procedural fairness
Show more
[…] Court File Nos.: CRIM. MOTION (P) 5711/01; 5725/01 Ontario Superior Court of Justice Hill J. […] At the hearing, the intervener filed extensive affidavit and transcript material in an effort to demonstrate the Association’s experience with “the practice in bail courts in the Region of Peel and the issues surrounding Bail Committees and bail reform from 1997 to the present”. […]
6.
Osborne v. Non-Marine Underwriters, Lloyd's of London, 2003 CanLII 7000 (ON SC)
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
2003-11-13 | 11 pages | cited by 15 documents
AI-generated
The Court struck a pleading alleging bad faith based on insurer's reserve figures, finding such information immaterial and prejudicial to fair trial proceedings. Other motions to sever or stay the bad faith claim were dismissed. Appeal allowed in part.
Insurance Practice and procedure
Insurance — Bad faith claims — Statutory accident benefits — Insurer's duty of good faith — Insurer accused of setting reserve figures arbitrarily low, impairing claim management — Whether reserve figures are relevant to bad faith claims — Reserve figures deemed immaterial to bad faith claims absent exceptional circumstances — Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure applied to strike pleading as scandalous, frivolous, or prejudicial
Evidence — Pleadings — Striking pleadings — Insurer moved to strike pleading alleging reserve figures were set arbitrarily low — Whether the pleading was scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or prejudicial to the fair trial of the action — Court held reserve figures irrelevant to bad faith claims and struck the pleading — Rule 25.11 applied
Civil procedure — Severance and stay of claims — Insurer sought to sever or stay bad faith claim pending resolution of statutory accident benefits claim — Whether severance or stay was appropriate — Court upheld Master's decision to dismiss severance and stay motions — Balancing of prejudices between parties considered
Civil procedure — Discovery — Stay of discovery — Insurer sought to stay oral and documentary discovery related to bad faith claim pending resolution of statutory accident benefits claim — Whether stay of discovery was appropriate — Court upheld Master's decision to dismiss stay motion — Discovery obligations balanced against fairness concerns
Show more
[…] Court File No. 01-CV-219743CM Ontario Superior Court of Justice Blair R.S.J. […] Insurance Co., unreported, Court File No. 98-CV-148590, June 25, 1998 (Master); CMLQ Investors Co. v. 759418 Ontario Ltd. (1997), 14 C.P.C. (4th) 380, [1997] O.J. No. 2890 (QL), 33 O.T.C. 235 (Gen. Div.) ; Contos v. Kingsway General Insurance Co., 2001 CanLII 62787 (ON SC) , [2001] I.L.R. ÂI-3975, [2001] O.J. No. 1327 […]
7.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353 v Nicholas Brandon Harris o/a Harris Industries, 2023 CanLII 109250 (ON LRB)
Ontario Labour Relations Board
2023-11-02 | 3 pages
referral — remittances — delivered — grievance — contributions
[…] That section of the Act also allows the Board in that circumstance to determine the matter based solely on the material filed by the applicant. Further, both the Confirmation of Filing Form sent to the responding party by the Registrar and Rule 36 set out the consequences that may result from the failure to file Form A-87 […] Harris Industries and is therefore the proper entity to be bound (see, for example 1145377 Ontario Inc. o/a MJB Drywall & Acoustics and/or Choppers Drywall, 2015 CanLII 68037 (ON LRB) , Mario Rock Dupere o/a Dupere Home Renovations, 2021 CanLII 2424 (ON LRB) , and AI McMillan Flooring, 2019 CanLII 75563 (ON LRB) ); […]
8.
Geophysical Service Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 NSSC 240 (CanLII)
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
2013-07-25 | 16 pages | cited by 3 documents
AI-generated
Practice and procedure
Jurisdiction — Issue estoppel — Rule 4.07
[…] [33] Also, Rule 13.03(3) specifies that no affidavit may be filed either in support or in opposition to the motion. As such, although Paul Einarsson's affidavit was relevant to the issue estoppel ground, I will ignore it entirely when assessing the pleadings. […] It relies heavily on the New Brunswick Court of Appeal's recent decision in AI Enterprises Ltd and Schelew v Bram Enterprises Ltd and Jamb Enterprises Ltd, 2012 NBCA 33 (CanLII) [AI Enterprises]. […]
9.
Healy v. Pilot Insurance Co., 2003 CanLII 12213 (ON SC)
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
2003-12-15 | 19 pages | cited by 6 documents
AI-generated
The Court held that the Standard Mortgage Clause ensures coverage for the mortgagee, overriding policy exclusions for prolonged vacancy. The insurer failed to clearly exclude such coverage in the clause, and ambiguities were resolved in favour of the mortgagee, aligning with principles of insurance contract interpretation. Judgment for the mortgagee.
Insurance
Insurance — Standard Mortgage Clause — Vacancy exclusions — Mortgagee's rights — Insurance policy contained a Standard Mortgage Clause protecting the mortgagee's interest despite vacancy exceeding 30 days — Does the Standard Mortgage Clause override vacancy exclusions? — Standard Mortgage Clause interpreted as creating a separate contract between the insurer and the mortgagee, superseding conflicting policy provisions
Insurance — Contract interpretation — Ambiguities — Contra proferentem — Reasonable expectations — Insurance policy provisions regarding vacancy exclusions and Standard Mortgage Clause found ambiguous — Should ambiguities in insurance contracts be resolved in favour of the mortgagee? — Principles of contra proferentem and reasonable expectations applied to favour the mortgagee
Insurance — Mortgagee's entitlement — Acts or omissions of mortgagor — Vacancy — Mortgagee sought recovery under an insurance policy despite the mortgagor's failure to occupy the property — Is the mortgagee entitled to recover when the mortgagor's actions would void coverage? — Standard Mortgage Clause protects the mortgagee's interest regardless of the mortgagor's acts or omissions, including vacancy
Show more
[…] Cornwall Court File No. 02/871 Ontario Superior Court of Justice Polowin J. December 15, 2003 […] CanLII 10 (SCC) , [1980] 1 S.C.R. 888, 112 D.L.R. (3d) 49, 32 N.R. 488, [1980] I.L.R. Â1-1176; Halifax Insurance Company v. Killick, 2000 NSSC 167 (CanLII) , [2000] I.L.R. ÂI- 3901, [2000] N.S.J. No. 272 (QL), 22 C.C.L.I. (3d) 117, 187 N.S.R. (2d) 131 (S.C.); National Bank of Greece (Canada) v. Katsikonouris, 1990 CanLII […]
10.
Noel v Harrison, 2025 ONMIC 8 (CanLII)
Municipal Integrity Commissioners of Ontario
2025-12-31 | 7 pages | cited by 1 document
news release — in-person attendance — inquiry — motions — seconding
[…] [2] Ritch Noel v. Dryden (Corporation of the City), Divisional Court File. No. 25-00000006-00JR. [3] Dhillon v. Brampton (City), 2021 ONSC 4165 (CanLII) , paras. 34 , 40. […] [10] R. v. AI Klippert Ltd., 1998 CanLII 821 (SCC) , [1998] 1 S.C.R. 737, at 746, para. 13 . […]
11.
Jesuit Fathers of Upper Canada v. Guardian Insurance Co. of Canada, 2003 CanLII 23199 (ON SC)
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
2003-10-27 | 56 pages | cited by 4 documents
AI-generated
The Court held that the insurer must defend claims arising from negligence during the policy period, but not claims discovered or made after the policy expired. The administration of a residential school was deemed a professional service covered under the policy, unaffected by the intentional acts exclusion.
Contracts Insurance
Insurance — Duty to defend — Professional liability insurance — Insurer's obligation to defend claims of negligence in the administration of a residential school — Does the insurer have a duty to defend under a professional liability policy? — The duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and arises where there is a mere possibility of coverage under the policy
Insurance — Exclusion clauses — Intentional acts exclusion — Allegations of negligence in supervision and administration of a residential school — Does the intentional acts exclusion negate coverage for negligence claims? — Exclusion clauses must be narrowly construed and do not apply to negligence claims distinct from intentional torts
Insurance — Claims-made policies — Definition of "claim" — Reporting of potential claims during the policy period — What constitutes a "claim" under a claims-made policy? — A claim includes any communication of a demand for compensation or assertion of liability, even absent a formal demand, if objectively reasonable
Insurance — Temporal limits of coverage — Claims made after policy expiration — Are claims made after the policy period covered if related to negligence discovered during the policy period? — Claims must be "first made" or discovered during the policy period to trigger coverage under a claims-made policy
Indigenous peoples — Residential schools — Negligence in administration — Allegations of harm to Indigenous students at a residential school — Does the insurer have a duty to defend claims of negligence in the administration of a residential school? — The administration of a residential school constitutes a professional service under the policy
Show more
[…] Court File No. 02-7128 Ontario Superior Court of Justice Whitten J. October 27, 2003 […] S.C.J.); M. (E.) v. Reed, 2003 CanLII 52150 (ON CA) , [2003] I.L.R. ÂI-4191, 171 O.A.C. 145, CarswellOnt 1723 (C.A.) , revg in part 2001 CanLII 62766 (ON SC) , [2001] I.L.R. ÂI-4005, 32 C.C.L.I. (3d) 301 (Ont. S.C.J.) , additional reasons (2000), 2000 CanLII 50983 (ON SC) , [2001] I.L.R. ÂI-3947, [2000] O.J. No. 4791 […]
12.
University of New Brunswick Law Journal, 2025 CanLIIDocs 3107
Julia Belanger, Sheilah L Martin, Jutta Brunnée et al – University of New Brunswick Law Journal
483 pages
kirpan — legal — religious — students — access to justice
Environment International law Rights and freedoms
[…] before US courts, concerns allegations that Ross used copyrighted legal materials to train its AI legal research tool, while CanLII v. Caseway AI, currently before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, involves questions about unauthorized scraping and reuse of CanLII webpage data, in breach of CanLII’s terms of use. […] preparation of legal materials, whether that be an affidavit, an application, a factum, or a statement of defence. There is no disputing that the language of law remains complex and stylized; in particular, drafting some legal documents (such as affidavits and factums) is incredibly challenging for non-lawyers, due to […]
13.
Ramada Canada Ltd. v. Park Place Centre Ltd., 1994 NSCA 220 (CanLII)
Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
1994-12-08 | 4 pages
AI-generated
Contracts Practice and procedure
Appeals — Grounds
[…] Justice Goodfellow heard the parties, considered extensive affidavit evidence and provided opportunity for cross examination on the affidavits. […] It was well expressed by former Chief Justice MacKeigan in Exco Corporation Umited v. Nova Scotia Savings and Loan et aI. (1983), 1983 CanLII 5162 (NS CA) , 59 N.S.R. (2d) 331 at p. 333 as follows: […]
14.
Avis Rent A Car System Inc. v. Certas Direct Insurance Co., 2004 CanLII 26927 (ON SC)
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
2004-05-11 | 22 pages | cited by 1 document
AI-generated
The Court held that the rental vehicle owner's insurance policies were primary under Ontario's Insurance Act, while the driver's personal policy was excess insurance and not required to contribute to the settlement.
Insurance
Insurance — Automobile insurance — Indemnity — Section 277(1) of the Insurance Act — Insurer of personal automobile policy not required to indemnify or contribute to settlement for accident involving a rented vehicle — Does section 277(1) impose a duty on the personal insurer? — Owner’s policy deemed first loss insurance — Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, s. 277(1)
Insurance — Equitable subrogation — Judgment against insured renter — Owner of rented vehicle sought indemnity from personal automobile insurer — Whether equitable subrogation applies to require indemnity for amounts exceeding renter’s purchased coverage — Principles of unjust enrichment and fairness — Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, ss. 239, 244
Insurance — Exclusion clauses — Rented vehicle used for work purposes — Personal automobile policy excluding coverage for vehicles hired or leased by employer — Whether exclusion clause precludes coverage for insured renter — Interpretation of exclusion clauses in Ontario automobile policies — Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, s. 249
Insurance — Priority of insurance policies — First loss and excess insurance — Multiple policies engaged for liability arising from automobile accident — Determination of priority under section 277(1) of the Insurance Act — Owner’s policy as first loss insurance — Excess insurance only applies after exhaustion of first loss insurance — Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, s. 277(1)
Show more
[…] Court File No. 02-CV-237770CM3 Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Pitt J. […] See Budget Rent-a-Car of Edmonton Ltd. v. Lombard Canada , 1998 ABQB 74 (CanLII) , [1998] I.L.R. ÂI-3562, [1998] 7 W.W.R. 329 (Alta. Q.B.), affd 1998 ABCA 373 (CanLII) , [1999] I.L.R. ÂI-3641, [1999] 10 W.W.R. 701 (Alta. C.A.) ; Perduk v. Hyslop (1991), 1991 CanLII 14482 (ON CTPD) , 8 C.C.L.I. (2d) 224, [1992] I.L.R. […]
15.
Avante Automobile (2017) Corporation v BMW Canada Inc., 2018 ONSC 7406 (CanLII)
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
2018-12-12 | 9 pages | cited by 2 documents
AI-generated
The Court struck claims against corporate officers, finding no independent tort or personal liability as alleged actions were within their corporate roles. Plaintiffs were granted a final opportunity to amend their pleading to address deficiencies.
Practice and procedure
Civil procedure — Motions to strike — Amended Statement of Claim — Individual defendants — Plaintiffs alleged misconduct by corporate officers and employees — Should the Amended Statement of Claim against the individual defendants be struck for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action? — “Plain and obvious” test applied — Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions to strike
Civil procedure — Duty of care and fiduciary duty — Corporate officers and employees — Plaintiffs alleged individual defendants owed duties under the Dealership Agreement — Do the individual defendants owe a duty of care or fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs in the circumstances? — No duty of care or fiduciary duty found — Claims struck for lack of factual underpinning
Torts — Intentional interference with economic relations — Plaintiffs alleged individual defendants interfered with dealership sale process — Can the plaintiffs’ claim for intentional interference with economic relations against the individual defendants succeed as pleaded? — No actionable unlawful means alleged — Claim struck for failure to meet required elements of the tort
Civil procedure — Leave to amend — Plaintiffs sought leave to amend their pleading to address defects — Should the plaintiffs be granted leave to amend their pleading to address the defects identified in the Amended Statement of Claim? — Leave to amend granted as a final opportunity — Plaintiffs must cure defects to proceed
Show more
[…] COURT FILE NO.: CV-18-595011 DATE: 20181212 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE […] As Cromwell J. described it in Bram Enterprises Ltd. v. A.I. Enterprises Ltd., 2014 SCC 12 (CanLII) , at para. 23 : […]
16.
Artificial Intelligence & Criminal Justice: Cases and Commentary, 2024 CanLIIDocs 3035
Benjamin Perrin – Canadian Legal Information Institute
1,095 pages
Artificial intelligence — Vehicles — judiciary — evidence — algorithms
Criminal or statutory infractions Technology
[…] [62] The expressions of accountability and regret, coupled with the withdrawal of the offending factum, purge any contempt of court that might have been found. I likely would not have been inclined to require Ms. Lee to file a new factum. […] In all of the circumstances, the removal of the Motion Record from the Court file is a very modest sanction . Removal of the abusive Motion Record from the Court file is necessary to preserve the integrity of the Court's process and the administration of justice . […]
17.
A.N. and B.N. v. Saskatchewan (Minister of Social Services), 1988 CanLII 5296 (SK QB)
Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan
1988-07-13 | 21 pages | cited by 11 documents
AI-generated
The Court dismissed an appeal challenging a child protection order, emphasizing the admissibility of hearsay evidence and prioritizing the children's welfare over parental rights.
Child protection Family
Child protection — Need of protection — Best interests of the child — Appeal under section 36(1) of the Family Services Act — Whether the trial judge erred in finding that the children were in need of protection — Application of section 15 definitions of “need of protection” — Broad scope of review under section 36(1) — Paramountcy of child welfare over parental rights — Family Services Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. F-7
Evidence — Hearsay evidence — Relevance and probative value — Admissibility of hearsay evidence in child protection hearings — Use of hearsay to assess children’s mental and emotional state — Exceptions to hearsay rule based on necessity and expedience — Whether hearsay evidence was improperly admitted or misused — Weight of hearsay evidence in child protection cases
Family — Parental circumstances — Changes in personal circumstances — Whether the trial judge failed to consider improvements in the appellants’ circumstances — Attendance at batterers’ programs and Alcoholics Anonymous — Insufficiency of evidence to demonstrate meaningful change — Best interests of the child standard applied to assess parental fitness
Child protection — Best interests of the child — Judicial discretion in child protection appeals — Broad powers under section 36(1) to make orders in the child’s best interests — Whether the trial judge properly prioritized the children’s welfare over parental preferences — Relevance of abuse of siblings to the need for protection of younger children
Show more
[…] (3) I have for consideration only their affidavit and that of a probation officer. [7] The appellants filed these affidavits on this appeal: […] [11] In J.R. v. A.I. (1987), 1987 CanLII 4547 (SK QB) , 60 Sask. R. 81, (Sask. U.F.C.), Carter, J., in a custody context, dealt with hearsay so: […]
18.
Henrie v H.S., 2025 SKKB 74 (CanLII)
Court of King's Bench for Saskatchewan
2025-06-09 | 33 pages
AI-generated
A babysitter's application for parenting rights was dismissed as she lacked "sufficient interest" under the law. The Court found her involvement, though significant, did not justify overriding the parents' rights, especially given their current fitness and cooperation in raising the children. Costs were awarded against the applicant.
Child custody and access Family
Family — Parenting orders — Best interests of the child — Non-relative caregiver seeking sole decision-making responsibility and primary parenting of children — Parents opposed application — Whether granting parenting rights to a non-relative caregiver is in the best interests of the children — Court found parents fit and capable — Parenting orders must prioritize the children’s physical, psychological, and emotional well-being — The Children's Law Act, 2020, SS 2020, c 2, s. 10
Child protection — Sufficient interest — Non-relative caregiver applied to be designated as a person having a sufficient interest in children — Caregiver provided paid babysitting services for several years — Whether caregiver’s relationship with children met the threshold for sufficient interest — Court held caregiver’s role did not rise above that of a paid babysitter — Application dismissed — The Children's Law Act, 2020, SS 2020, c 2, s. 8
Civil procedure — Costs — Frivolous application — Self-represented applicant warned of potential costs consequences — Applicant pursued multiple duplicative applications and filed inadmissible evidence — Whether significant costs should be awarded against the applicant — Court awarded $2,000 in costs to the respondent — The King's Bench Rules, Rule 15-46
Show more
[…] (5) If an affidavit or part of an affidavit has been struck pursuant to this rule, an opposing party who has filed an affidavit in response to the offending material may be awarded double costs of filing that affidavit. […] it is common for hearsay evidence of children’s statements to be admitted, either as evidence of what was said rather than for the truth of the statements, or simply because the evidence is necessary or expedient in the circumstances: see J.R. v A.I. (1988), 1988 CanLII 5332 (SK CA) , 61 Sask R 225 (CA) at paras 13-17 . […]
19.
Prenor Trust Co. of Canada v. Seawood Enterprises Ltd. et al., 1992 CanLII 4531 (NS SC)
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
1992-07-06 | 18 pages
AI-generated
Practice and procedure Property and trusts
Mortgages — Deficiency — Application for deficiency judgment
[…] On April 8th, 1992, within the six month period, Prenor made an application for leave to enter a deficiency judgment and a defence to the application for a deficiency judgment was filed by Mr. Bezanson. Seawood and the other guarantor, Mr. Claes, have not filed defences. […] As stated by our Appeal Division in F.B.D. B. v. Jordan et aI. (1988), 1988 CanLII 9761 (NS CA) , 86 N.S.R. (2d) 64 at p. 68: […]
20.
N.M. v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance, 2005 SKAIA 69 (CanLII)
Automobile Injury Appeal Commission
2005-12-19 | 15 pages
AI-generated
The Panel overturned the insurer's termination of income replacement and treatment benefits, finding the decision unreasonable and based on erroneous assumptions. The insurer failed to adequately consider medical evidence and legal requirements, including the necessity of treatment for rehabilitation and recovery. Benefits were reinstated, and costs awarded to the claimant.
Administrative law — Automobile Injury Appeal Commission — Reasonableness of administrative decisions — Termination of income replacement benefits and treatment benefits by Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) — Whether SGI’s decisions were reasonable and based on sufficient evidence — Application of statutory and regulatory provisions governing rehabilitation and income replacement — Standard of review for administrative decisions — Decision set aside due to errors in law and unreasonable conclusions
Insurance — Income replacement benefits — Termination of benefits — Appellant’s ability to perform essential job duties post-accident — Whether SGI demonstrated that the Appellant was substantially able to perform pre-accident employment duties — Application of Automobile Accident Insurance Act, s. 129(1), and Personal Injury Benefits Regulations, s. 18 — Decision to terminate benefits found unreasonable and set aside
Insurance — Treatment benefits — Termination of rehabilitation treatments — Whether SGI’s termination of chiropractic and orthodontic treatments complied with statutory requirements — Necessity of treatments to contribute to rehabilitation, lessen disability, or facilitate recovery — Automobile Accident Insurance Act, s. 110(1) — Decision to terminate treatment benefits found without foundation and set aside
Social welfare — Reimbursement of expenses — Costs awarded to successful appellant — Entitlement to reimbursement for treatment costs, application fees, travel expenses, and practitioner reports — Automobile Accident Insurance Act, s. 169, and Personal Injury Benefits Regulations, s. 76 — Costs awarded to the Appellant
Show more
[…] [30] At this point, SGI referred her medical file to one of its consultants, Dr. Endsin, seeking direction, specifically whether it was accident-related or non-accident-related conditions that were preventing her from working, whether further assessment was necessary, and whether there was enough information on file to […] [14] E.A. v. SGI, 2004 SKAIA 20 (CanLII) , 2004 SKAIA 020; A.I. v. SGI, 2004 SKAIA 18 (CanLII) , 2004 SKAIA 018, A.H. v SGI, 2004 SKAIA 22 (CanLII) , 2004 SKAIA 022, following Deibert v Giddings , 2003 SKQB 533 . […]
21.
20219311 (Re), 2021 CanLII 30386 (NB TAAT)
Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal
2021-03-31 | 7 pages
contracture — condition personnelle — préexistante — docteur — lésion corporelle subie par suite
[…] Dr. Losier appears to state that an “injury” occurred at work however the F67 and information currently on file does not describe any specific or acute work event. Dr. Husein’s (Plastic Surgeon) opinion per the July 27, 2015 consult is again noted (ie, that the condition is not work related). […] La Cour d’appel du Nouveau-Brunswick a déjà eu l’occasion d’interpréter ces deux paragraphes comme signifiant que le Tribunal doit non seulement considérer la preuve au dossier d’appel, mais également le témoignage de vive voix du requérant : Paul c. Travail sécuritaire NB, 2018 NBCA 47 (CanLII) . […]
22.
Association de l'enseignement du Nouveau-Québec c. Commission scolaire Kativik, 2008 CanLII 15233 (QC SAT)
Labour Arbitration Awards (including Conférence des arbitres)
2008-04-11 | 56 pages | cited by 1 document
AI-generated
Dans un contexte de congédiement pour absentéisme chronique, l'Arbitre refuse la réintégration provisoire d'un enseignant invalidé, considérant les contraintes opérationnelles de l'employeur et l'absence de preuve claire d'un droit apparent.
Travail et emploi — Congédiement administratif — Absentéisme chronique — Effets sur la prestation de travail et les services éducatifs — L’employeur pouvait-il mettre fin à l’emploi en raison d’un taux d’absences très élevé? — Contraintes opérationnelles dans un village nordique — Élèves en cheminement particulier affectés — Réintégration provisoire réclamée — Balance des inconvénients défavorable au salarié — Requête rejetée
Procédure — Ordonnances interlocutoires — Pouvoir de l’arbitre — Code du travail, art. 100.12 — Quels critères gouvernent la réintégration provisoire et le maintien des avantages? — Cause défendable plutôt que droit clair — Soupeser le préjudice relatif des parties — Référence à Re Globe and Mail — Affidavits contradictoires, preuve incomplète — Mesure exceptionnelle refusée — Requête rejetée
Contrats — Convention collective — Renvoi et invalidité — Clauses 5-7.00, 5-7.02, 5-10.29, 5-10.36 — L’employeur devait-il attendre l’issue d’un arbitrage médical avant le congédiement? — Interprétation des clauses de renvoi et d’assurance salaire — Incidence de l’expertise du docteur Blondin — Grief jugé défendable, mais sans droit clair — Ordonnance de sauvegarde refusée
Louage — Logement de fonction — Maintien dans les lieux — Code civil du Québec, art. 1936 — Le salarié congédié peut-il conserver le logement durant l’instance? — Clause 12-7.06 sur la cohabitation examinée — Pénurie de logements à Inukjuak et besoins opérationnels — Préjudice à l’employeur jugé majeur — Demande de maintien du logement refusée
Droits et libertés — Droit à l’égalité — Handicap et accommodement — La décision de congédier respectait-elle l’obligation d’accommodement? — Référence à Syndicat des employé-e-s de techniques professionnelles et de bureau d’Hydro-Québec c. Hydro-Québec — Mesures patronales invoquées, preuve complète requise — Défense crédible annoncée, issue réservée au fond — Ordonnance provisoire refusée
Show more
[…] • Syndicat des employé-e-s de techniques professionnelles et de bureau d’Hydro-Québec, section locale 2000 (SCFP-FTQ) c. HydroQuébec et aI, C.A. 2006 QCCA 150 (CanLII) , 500-09-015085-046, le 7 février 2006 ; […] • Syndicat de l’enseignement de Champlain et al c. Commission scolaire régionale de Chambly et aI, 1994 CanLII 102 (CSC) , [1994] 2 R.C.S. 525; […]
23.
2292142 Ontario Inc. v. Bordin Racing Ltd., 2018 ONSC 1514 (CanLII)
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
2018-03-06 | 18 pages | cited by 1 document
AI-generated
The Court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial against two defendants who were not parties to the sublease. The Court held they had no contractual or tortious obligations related to the lease termination or occupancy permit.
Contracts Practice and procedure
Lease — Breach of sublease — Liability of non-parties — Moving Parties not signatories to the sublease — Whether non-parties can be held liable for breach of sublease — Court held that non-parties cannot be liable for breach of a contract they were not parties to — Basic principles of contract law applied
Contracts — Occupancy permit — Services agreement — Whether Moving Parties were responsible for obtaining an occupancy permit under the services agreement — Court found no obligation under the services agreement for Moving Parties to obtain an occupancy permit — Commercial reasonableness and separation of agreements considered
Contracts — Negligent misrepresentation — Representations made by Moving Parties — Whether Moving Parties made false or misleading representations regarding the sublease or services agreement — No evidence of untrue, inaccurate, or misleading representations — Essential elements of negligent misrepresentation not established
Obligations — Intentional interference with economic relations — Termination of sublease — Whether Moving Parties interfered with plaintiff’s economic relations through unlawful means — No evidence of interference with plaintiff’s customers or unlawful conduct by Moving Parties — Tort elements not satisfied
Lease — Trespass — Entry upon subleased premises — Whether Moving Parties trespassed on the subleased premises — No evidence of unauthorized entry or projection onto the premises by Moving Parties — Trespass claim dismissed
Show more
[…] COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-117977 DATE: 20180306 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE […] [4] Bram Enterprises Ltd. v. A.I. Enterprises Ltd., 2014 SCC 12 (CanLII) , 2014 SCC12, at para. 23 […]
24.
Garland v. Consumers' Gas Co., 2000 CanLII 22630 (ON SC)
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
2000-04-19 | 50 pages | cited by 9 documents
AI-generated
A class action challenging late payment penalties was dismissed as an impermissible collateral attack on regulatory orders. The court held that the penalties were authorized by valid regulatory orders, providing a complete defence under statutory provisions, and found no unjust enrichment due to a juristic reason for the charges.
Criminal or statutory infractions Practice and procedure
Public utilities — Late payment penalties — Ontario Energy Board Act — Restitution — Whether section 18 of the Ontario Energy Board Act provides a complete defence to the plaintiff’s claim for restitution of late payment penalties collected under rate orders — Statutory immunity for actions taken in compliance with regulatory orders — Ontario Energy Board Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.13, s. 18
Constitution — Criminal Code — Regulated industries defence — Whether the “regulated industries” defence shields a gas distributor from liability under section 347 of the Criminal Code for charging late payment penalties — Federal criminal law versus provincial regulatory authority — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 347
Constitution — Criminal Code — Sovereign authority — Whether section 15 of the Criminal Code provides a defence to a gas distributor for charging late payment penalties authorized by a provincial regulator — Scope of section 15’s protection for actions under de facto sovereign authority — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 15
Administrative law — Collateral attack — Ontario Energy Board — Whether the plaintiff’s action constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on the Ontario Energy Board’s rate orders authorizing late payment penalties — Jurisdiction of administrative tribunals over rate-setting and related disputes — Doctrine of collateral attack
Obligations — Unjust enrichment — Restitution — Whether the plaintiff’s claim for restitution of late payment penalties satisfies the test for unjust enrichment — Juristic reason for enrichment provided by valid regulatory orders — Test for unjust enrichment: enrichment, deprivation, and absence of juristic reason
Show more
[…] Court File No. 94-CQ-50711 Ontario Superior Court of Justice Winkler J. Heard: March 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29 and 30, 2000 […] 1 S.C.R. 706, 158 D.L.R. (4th) 193; and R. v. AI Klippert Ltd., 1998 CanLII 821 (SCC) , [1998] 1 S.C.R. 737, 158 D.L.R. (4th) 219, the Supreme Court concluded that the question of whether a criminal court may determine the validity of an administrative order on a collateral basis will depend upon a number of factors. […]
25.
Regina v. A.I., 2014 BCPC 183 (CanLII)
Provincial Court of British Columbia
2014-08-13 | 21 pages | cited by 1 document
AI-generated
Criminal or statutory infractions Sentencing
Criminal law — Sexual offences — Sexual assault
[…] 2014 BCPC 0183 File No: 88600-1 Registry: Port Coquitlam IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA […] [11] The Crown filed Z.R.’s victim impact statement and M.W.’s victim impact statement. […]
Comments