
General & Other judgments from Canadian courts and tribunals, with a plain-English summary, the legal holding and frequently asked questions.
The claimant asked for extra payment for moving services due to unexpected delays. The respondent said the original estimate was final. The tribunal sided with the claimant, saying the extra charges were fair.
The Federal Court of Appeal assessed the costs of an appeal based on the complexity and importance of the issues involved, following the Federal Courts Rules.
The claimant asked for a refund because they claimed the credit card charges were unauthorized and the windows were defective. The CRT ruled against the claimant, saying there was no proof of defects and the charges were authorized.
The Civil Resolution Tribunal dismissed a homeowner's claim for compensation after discovering their new home had a traditional water heater instead of a promised tankless one. The Tribunal ruled that the claimant failed to provide sufficient proof that the seller was obligated to install a tankless water heater.
The claimant won damages after proving that the insurance company incorrectly determined responsibility for a collision. The tribunal awarded $150 in damages, interest, and CRT fees.
The claimant asked the Civil Resolution Tribunal to reimburse her for replacing a fence on common property. The tribunal decided that the claimant was responsible for the cost according to the agreement between the parties and denied her request.
A contractor successfully recovered payment for flooring work from a subcontractor in a Small Claims case. Despite the subcontractor's claims of unauthorized electrical work and warranty voiding, the Civil Resolution Tribunal ruled in favour of the contractor.
A homeowner hired a contractor to mow her lawn. She claimed that the contractor's actions damaged her neighbour's vehicle and sought compensation. However, the Tribunal found that she could not prove the contractor caused the damage or had a legal obligation to pay the neighbour.
The claimant challenged the insurer's decision that he was fully responsible for a car accident. The Civil Resolution Tribunal reviewed the evidence and found that the insurer's determination was reasonable and supported by the facts. The claimant's challenge was dismissed.
The Civil Resolution Tribunal dismissed a claimant's application to overturn an insurer's accident responsibility assessment. The claimant argued that the insurer incorrectly assessed the driver's responsibility. However, the Tribunal found that the claimant did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the driver was less responsible for the accident.
The Civil Resolution Tribunal reduced the claimant's responsibility for a motor vehicle accident from 100% to 80%. The Tribunal found the respondent's determination was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence and applicable law.
The Civil Resolution Tribunal ruled in favour of the claimant, ordering the respondent to repay $5,000 of a personal loan. The decision was based on text messages and a bank draft provided by the claimant.
The claimant successfully obtained a default judgment against the in personam defendant but failed to secure judgment against the in rem defendants. The court awarded the claimant $413,291.04 plus interest and costs.