56 out of 812 casebriefs.

Style of causeRatio

Agha (Mustapha) v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 564

Case does not raise issue worthy of appeal.

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, [1992] 1 AC 310

A person suffering nervous shock must have reasonable proximity to the event that caused the shock in order to claim for damages.

Arland v Taylor, [1955] OR 131 (CA)

The standard of care use to judge conduct is based on what the conduct of a reasonable person would be.

Banamar-Capizzi v. Embassy of the Popular Democratic Republic of Algeria (1989), 87 ILR 56

A declaration from the ambassador or other competent authority regarding the diplomatic status of state assets must be accepted on its face.

BG Checo International Ltd v British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, [1993] 1 SCR 12

Concurrency rule: If the tort duty is not contradicted by the contract, it remains intact and may be sued upon.

Bolton v Stone, [1951] AC 850, [1951] 1 All ER 1078

There is no special duty of care owed by land owners to persons on an adjoining highway. The landowner is held to the standard of care of a reasonable, ordinary, prudent person. If the land owner's conduct is not unreasonable, he has not breached any duty to his neighbor.

The test: Whether the risk of damage to a person on the road was so small that a reasonable person in the position of the appellants, considering the matter from the point of view of safety, would have thought it unnecessary to refrain from taking steps to prevent the danger.

Bovingdon v Hergott, 2008 ONCA 2

A doctor has a duty of care to the mother, but not to the fetus.

Canada (Attorney General) v Ward, [1993] 2 SCR 689

** State complicity is not required to ground a claim for the purposes of ‘unable’ or ‘unwilling’ in the Convention definition.
** 3 categories of particular social group
** Political opinion can be imputed from actions --- it is the opinion attributed to the claimant by their persecutors that is determinative

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Tobiass, [1997] 3 SCR 391

One judge cannot interfere with the reasoning of another judge, as this goes to judicial independence.

Charkaoui v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 SCC 9, [2007] 1 SCR 350

Add special advocates to review of reasonableness of certificates ( now s.77(2)) and detention review (now s.82), and give FNs and PRs the same rights to review of detention under (former) s.84(2)

Childs v Desormeaux, 2006 SCC 18

Social hosts of parties (where alcohol is served) do not owe a duty of care to third-parties who may be injured by intoxicated party guests.

Note that Canada is much harder on commercial establishments. There is a statutory cause of action in some provinces (over-serving someone is a cause of action), but they are much narrower than causes of action found in common law.

Demarco v Ungaro (1979) 95 DLR (3d) 385 (Ont HCJ)

Lawyers in Ontario do not have immunity from actions in negligence arising from their practice.

Diamond Neon (Manufacturing) v Toronto-Dominion Realty, [1976] 4 WWR 664 (BC CA.)

An article is a fixture unless expressly excluded from a sale; tenants must convert fixtures to chattels for removal on a timely basis.

The court followed the La Salle test to determine whether an object is a fixture or chattel:
** 1. Is the item resting on its own weight? If so, leads to a presumption that the object is chattel;
** 2. What is the degree of annexation? The stronger the attachment, the greater the presumption that the object is a fixture.
** 3. What is the purpose of annexation? If the object has been affixed for the better use of the chattel, then it strengthens the presumption that it is a chattel. If the object has been affixed for the better use of the land, then it strengthens the presumption that it is a fixture.

The court also noted that if an item is decorative, it strengthens the presumption that the object is chattel.

Didow v Alberta Power Ltd, [1988] 5 WWR 606 (Alta CA)

An intrusion that interferes with potential or actual use and enjoyment of the land constitutes trespass. There must also not be overriding policy considerations.

Ezokola v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FCA 224

A senior official who remains in his/her position without protest and continuing to defend the interests of their gov't while being aware of the crimes committed by this gov't may demonstrate ‘personal knowledge and participation’ in these crimes and be complicit with the gov't in their commission.