[{"id":3163250,"description":"Élections Document mis-à-jour le","title":"Sinclair-Desgagné c. Canada (Directeur général des élections) - 2026 CSC 31 - 2026-09-18","link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21377/index.do"},{"title":"R -v- Sulaiman Tajzai","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-sulaiman-tajzai/","id":3163249,"description":"In the Central Criminal Court 18 September 2026 Sentencing remarks of HHJ Angela Rafferty KC Between: R -v- Sulaiman Tajzai The post R -v- Sulaiman Tajzai appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary"},{"id":3162822,"description":"Procedure — Elections — Contested election application — Canada Elections Act, ss. 524(1)(b), 531(2) — Whether postal code error and failure to correct constituted an irregularity affecting the result — Opitz v. Wrzesnewskyj three-step test applied — Serious administrative error capable of undermining franchise found — Election in electoral district annulled Statutory interpretation — Modern approach — Associated words rule — Canada Elections Act, s. 524(1)(b) — Whether “irregularity” includes serious administrative error without dishonest intent — Noscitur a sociis applied to “irregularities, fraud or corrupt or illegal practices” — Serious administrative error honest and unintentional included — Appeal allowed Procedure — Causation — Vote count — Canada Elections Act, ss. 239(2), 240 — Whether irregularity affected the result by preventing a ballot from being received and counted — Direct causal link between postal code error and lost vote — Provisions not read to exonerate errors within Elections Canada’s control — Appeal allowed Evidence — Ballot secrecy — Contested election — Whether court may consider elector’s voting preference in applying Opitz framework — Tradition of secret ballot precludes investigation into voters’ actual choices — Focus required on vote count rather than election outcome — Error of law identified — Appeal allowed Procedure — Discretion — Annulment — Canada Elections Act, s. 531(2) — Whether election should be annulled where affected votes equal margin of victory — Magic number test applied, doubt as to winner — Considerations based on unresolved recount objections and alternative voting rejected — Discretion required to be exercised to annul — Election","title":"Sinclair-Desgagné v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer), 2026 SCC 31 (CanLII)","link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2026/2026canlii10549/2026canlii10549.html"},{"id":3160605,"description":"The Judiciary is making progress on three key initiatives: modernizing case-management technology, authority to manage mission-essential Judiciary properties, and setting policy on AI use, the Judicial Conference of the United States was told","title":"Judiciary Cites Progress on Case Management, Property Authority, and AI","link":"http://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/judiciary-news/2026/09/17/judiciary-cites-progress-case-management-property-authority-and-ai"},{"description":"Droit constitutionnel Législation Document mis-à-jour le","id":3158142,"link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/384/index.do","title":"Ford c. Québec (Procureur général) - [1988] 2 RCS 712 - 1988-12-15"},{"description":"At the Central Criminal Court 16 September 2026 Sentencing remarks of His Honour Judge Mark Lucraft KC, Recorder of London Between: R -v- Paul Street Joshua Williams The post R -v- Paul Street and Joshua Williams appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","id":3158141,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-paul-street-and-joshua-williams/","title":"R -v- Paul Street and Joshua Williams"},{"id":3156882,"description":"Procedure — Appeals — Federal Courts Rules, Rule 51 — Standard of review — Whether the Associate Judge committed an error of law or palpable and overriding error — “Strong tactical burden” where Federal Court appears to have given a complete answer — Requests to reweigh the evidence rejected — Appeal dismissed with costs Procedure — Confidentiality order — Open court principle — Sherman Estate v. Donovan — Whether the confidentiality order should be set aside for not explicitly setting out the controlling legal test — Federal Courts Act, s. 52(b)(i), power to make the decision that should have been made — Distinguishing Fletcher v. Ontario on these facts — Appeal dismissed with costs Evidence — Settlement privilege — Indigenous litigants — Whether settlement privilege must be applied differently because of an asserted duty to act honourably — Submissions seeking modification of settlement privilege rejected — No change to principles governing settlement privilege merely because Indigenous parties are involved — Federal Court’s analysis upheld — Appeal dismissed with costs Procedure — Abuse of process — Civil litigation — Whether the principles governing abuse of process must be applied differently because Indigenous parties are involved — Standard test applied, not a bespoke test — Aims include judicial economy, consistency, finality and integrity of the administration of justice — Federal Court correct to enforce these principles — Appeal dismissed with","title":"Buck Estate v. Canada (Attorney General), 2026 FCA 153 (CanLII)","link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca153/2026fca153.html"},{"id":3156783,"description":"Neutral Citation No. [2026] EWHC 2233 (IPEC) CLAIM NO. IP-2025-000079 In the High Court of Justice Business and Property Courts of England and Wales Intellectual Property Enterprise Court 7 September 2026 Before: Miss Recorder Amanda Michaels (Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court) Between: Flowerbx Limited -v- Flowers Box London Limited The post Flowerbx Limited -v- Flowers Box London Limited appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","title":"Flowerbx Limited -v- Flowers Box London Limited","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/flowerbx-limited-v-flowers-box-london-limited/"},{"id":3155976,"description":"Droit constitutionnel Document mis-à-jour le","title":"R. c. Morgentaler - [1993] 3 RCS 463 - 1993-09-30","link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/1053/index.do"},{"title":"The Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police -v- Jason Barry","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/the-chief-constable-of-bedfordshire-police-v-jason-barry/","id":3153032,"description":"In the County Court at Luton 27 August 2026 Before: His Honour Judge Murch Between: The Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police -v- Jason Barry The post The Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police -v- Jason Barry appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary"},{"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-jack-shepherd/","title":"R -v- Jack Shepherd","description":"Case Number: URN01XB1270025 In the Crown Court at Isleworth 14 September 2026 Before: HHJ Edmunds KC Between: The King -v- Jack Shepherd The post R -v- Jack Shepherd appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","id":3153033},{"title":"R. c. Sharma - 2022 CSC 39 - [2022] 3 RCS 147 - 2022-11-04","link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/19540/index.do","id":3149655,"description":"Droit constitutionnel Document mis-à-jour le"},{"description":"Droit constitutionnel Nouveau document publié le","id":3148898,"link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21654/index.do","title":"R. c. R.B.-C. - 2026 CSC 30 - 2026-09-11"},{"title":"Vriend c. Alberta - [1998] 1 RCS 493 - 1998-04-02","link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/1607/index.do","id":3148899,"description":"Action Droit constitutionnel Document mis-à-jour le"},{"description":"In Westminster Magistrates’ Court 11 September 2026 Before: Sam Goozee, District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) Between: National Crime Agency (NCA) -v- The Football Association Premier League Limited The post National Crime Agency -v- The Football Association Premier League Limited appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","id":3148896,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/national-crime-agency-v-the-football-association-premier-league-limited/","title":"National Crime Agency -v- The Football Association Premier League Limited"},{"id":3148897,"description":"In the Crown Court sitting at Woolwich 11 September 2026 Sentencing remarks of HHJ Dyal Between: Rex -v- (1) Mr Bilal Rakik (2) Mr Zachariya Rakik The post R -v- Rakik and Rakik appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","title":"R -v- Rakik and Rakik","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-rakik-and-rakik/"},{"id":3148640,"description":"Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Appeal — Conditional sentence — Whether sentence reduction was proper remedy for unreasonable post-verdict delay — Delay treated as Charter remedy affecting sentence length — Conditional sentence reduced on appeal and upheld — Appeal dismissed Constitution — Charter of Rights — Section 11(b) — Post-verdict sentencing delay — Whether a presumptive ceiling applies to sentencing delay after conviction — Jordan ceilings rejected for post-verdict phase — Markedly longer than it reasonably should have been test adopted — Appeal dismissed Constitution — Charter of Rights — Section 11(b) — Reasonableness of delay — Whether time to complete sentencing proceedings markedly exceeded what it reasonably should have been — Contextual inquiry including complexity, reasons for delay, conduct of parties and court — Breach found on whole record — Appeal dismissed Constitution — Charter remedies — Section 24(1) — Post-verdict sentencing delay — Whether stay of proceedings is appropriate remedy after conviction — Remedies discretionary and contextual given attenuated interests post-verdict — Sentence reduction ordinarily appropriate, stay exceptional — Sentence reduction maintained — Appeal","title":"R. v. R.B.-C., 2026 SCC 30 (CanLII)","link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2026/2026scc30/2026scc30.html"},{"description":"Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWHC 2332 (KB) Case No: KB-2023-000252 KB-2022-005017 KB-2023-002200 KB-2023-002201 KB-2023-000437 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division 10 September 2026 Before: Mrs Justice Lambert DBE Between : ALAME and Others: KB-2023-000252 CHIEF MINAPAKAMA and Others: KB-2022-005017 OKPABI and Others: KB-2023-002200 EJIRE AWALA and Others: KB-2023-002201 OKOCHI NWOKO ODODO and Others: KB-2023-00043 -v- (1) SHELL PLC (formerly known as ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC) (2) RENAISSANCE AFRICA ENERGY COMPANY LIMITED (formerly known as THE SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF NIGERIA LTD) The post Alame and others -v- Shell Plc and another appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","id":3147534,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/alame-and-others-v-shell-plc-and-another/","title":"Alame and others -v- Shell Plc and another"},{"link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca150/2026fca150.html","title":"Paradis Honey Ltd. v. Canada (Agriculture and Agri-Food), 2026 FCA 150 (CanLII)","description":"Civil liability — Negligence — Duty of care — Regulatory authority — Did the CFIA owe a private law duty of care to commercial beekeepers — Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, Cooper v. Hobart framework applied — Lack of factual proximity in carrying out public functions — Appeal dismissed Statutory interpretation — Legislative scheme — Health of animals import controls — Health of Animals Act, Health of Animals Regulations — Whether the Act and Regulations create or support proximity for a private law duty — Statute aimed at public good, not economic interests of individual farmers — Regulatory Impact Analysis Statements limited interpretive value — Appeal dismissed Civil liability — Proximity — Regulator communications — Consultations with regulated industry — Whether interactions and communications created a special relationship of proximity — No representations, reliance, or expectations beyond normal regulator conduct — Communications inherent in CFIA’s regulatory function to protect animal health — No private law duty of care established — Appeal dismissed Civil liability — Damages — Pure economic loss — Recoverable loss — Whether recoverable loss or damages ensued from alleged negligence — Damages issue unnecessary given absence of private law duty of care — Certified common issue on loss not determined on appeal — Ground not addressed — Appeal","id":3146856},{"link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca152/2026fca152.html","title":"Canada (Food Inspection Agency) v. Moonfleet Poultry Inc., 2026 FCA 152 (CanLII)","description":"Administrative law — Judicial review — Reasonableness (Vavilov) — Application for judicial review under Federal Courts Act, para. 28(1)(b) — Whether the Tribunal made a reviewable error in its elements analysis — Tribunal strayed beyond statutory language and failed to justify four elements — Decision set aside and Notice affirmed Statutory interpretation — Regulations — Health of Animals Regulations, s. 150(1) — Whether the Tribunal misinterpreted “species of animal” and the structure of s. 150(1) — “And” makes requirements conjunctive, conditions (a) to (j) additional to prevention of suffering, injury or death — Tribunal interpretation unreasonable — Application allowed Procedure — Statutory breach — Elements of violation — Whether failure to show container “used to prevent” suffering, injury or death suffices to establish breach without proving para. (a) “species of animal” — Tribunal’s third element dispositive when proven — Notice of Violation affirmed — Penalty reinstated Administrative law — Remedies — No remittal — Whether there was only one reasonable outcome such that remitting to the Tribunal would serve no useful purpose — Reliance on Vavilov, paras. 124, 142 — Application for judicial review allowed, decision set aside, Notice affirmed, no costs","id":3146857},{"id":3146416,"description":"Droit constitutionnel Document mis-à-jour le","title":"Adler c. Ontario - [1996] 3 RCS 609 - 1996-11-21","link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/1446/index.do"},{"id":3145058,"description":"Droits et libertés — Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, art. 15 et art. 24 — Discrimination par suite d’un effet préjudiciable — Prestations de maternité et prestations parentales — Prestations régulières d’assurance-emploi refusées après perte d’emploi — Les dispositions contestées violent-elles l’art. 15? — Fraser c. Canada (Procureur général), Brooks c. Canada Safeway Ltd., Québec (Procureur général) c. Kanyinda — Demande de contrôle judiciaire accueillie Assurances — Assurance-emploi — Prestations régulières et prestations spéciales — LAE, par. 8(2), 8(5), 10(2), 10(10), 12(6), al. 10(8)a) — Privation d’accès aux prestations régulières après prestations de maternité et parentales — Distinction fondée sur le sexe, grossesse et maternité — Déclaration d’inopérabilité limitée, déclaration suspendue Constitution — Justification — Article premier — R. c. Oakes — Objectif urgent et réel, lien rationnel — Atteinte minimale contestée — Absence de preuve actuarielle et économique — Prolongation de la période de référence et de la période de prestations comparée aux exceptions de la LAE — Violation non justifiée — Déclaration suspendue Droit administratif — Contrôle judiciaire — Norme de contrôle — Décision correcte pour questions constitutionnelles — Conseil scolaire de district de York, Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration) c. Vavilov — Déférence pour conclusions de fait — Contestation tardive du rapport d’expert, Khodykin et Ibrahim — Annulation de la décision de la division d’appel — Décision de la division générale rétablie Pensions et prestations sociales — Tribunal de la sécurité sociale — Réparation — Déclaration d’invalidité, suspension — Renvoi à la Commission pour réexamen — Pouvoir réparateur, Charte, par. 24(1) — Cuddy Chicks Ltd. c. Ontario (Commission des Relations de Travail), R. c. Conway, Nouvelle-Écosse (Workers' Compensation Board) c. Martin — Déclaration d’inopérabilité suspendue, demandes renvoyées à la","title":"Chalifour-Racine c. Canada (Procureur général), 2026 CAF 145 (CanLII)","link":"https://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/caf/doc/2026/2026caf145/2026caf145.html"},{"id":3143713,"description":"In the Central Criminal Court 9 September 2026 Sentencing remarks of HHJ Judy Khan Between: Rex -v- Anthony O’Connor Appledorn Developments Ltd T Vaughan Limited The post R -v- O’Connor and others appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","title":"R -v- O’Connor and others","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-oconnor-and-others/"},{"link":"http://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/judiciary-news/2026/09/09/funds-available-additional-chapter-7-trustee-payments-fy-2025-cases","title":"Funds Available for Additional Chapter 7 Trustee Payments for FY 2025 Cases","description":"The Department of Justice (DOJ) has advised the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts that funds are available to transfer to the Judiciary to make additional payments to eligible Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustees for fiscal year","id":3142681},{"id":3141941,"description":"Bristol Crown Court 8 September 2026 Sentencing remarks of Mrs Justice Brunner DBE Between: The King -v- MGW The post R -v- MGW appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","title":"R -v- MGW","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-mgw/"},{"description":"Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWHC 890 (Admin) Case No: AC-2025-LON-003748 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Administrative Court 17 April 2026 Before: His Honour Judge Siddique (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) Between: Hanna Grzelczak -v- General Dental Council The post Hanna Grzelczak -v- General Dental Council appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","id":3139135,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/hanna-grzelczak-v-general-dental-council/","title":"Hanna Grzelczak -v- General Dental Council"},{"id":3139136,"description":"Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWHC 2298 (Admin) Case No: AC-2024-LON-003318, AC-2024-LON-003499, AC-2024-LON-003464 and AC-2024-LON-003282 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Administrative Court 7 September 2026 Before: Mr Justice Dexter Dias Between: The King on the application of Barclays Bank UK plc National Westminster Bank plc Vanquis Bank Limited Santander UK plc -v- Financial Ombudsman Service Limited and Aaron Domer Arnold Gajraj Deborah Campbell Jojo Brown (Interested parties) and Financial Conduct Authoruty (Intervener) The post Barclays Bank UK plc and others -v- Financial Ombudsman Service Limited appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","title":"Barclays Bank UK plc and others -v- Financial Ombudsman Service Limited","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/barclays-bank-uk-plc-and-others-v-financial-ombudsman-service-limited/"},{"id":3135832,"description":"Property — Expropriation — Compensation assessment — Expropriation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-21 governs the amount of compensation — Railway line constructed on Appellant’s land, four-meter strip expropriated — Noise increase described, mitigation recommended under the Health Canada Guidelines — Compensation limits affirmed — Appeal dismissed without costs Property — Expropriation — Injurious affection — Compensation for adverse effects limited to economic loss — Whether compensation turns on decrease in market value of remaining lands — No evidence of loss in value attributable to roughly five decibel increase in noise — Act provides narrower relief than tort damages — Claim rejected — Appeal dismissed without costs Property — Expropriation — Disturbance damages — Whether Appellant entitled to disturbance damages sought — Betterment precludes claimed disturbance damages — Act purpose not to cure deficiencies in prior mitigation efforts or enforce compliance with federal guidelines — Losses must arise from the particular taking in issue — Disturbance damages denied — Appeal dismissed without costs Procedure — Appeal — Scope of remittal and pleadings — Whether earlier judgment confined redetermination to monetary award and costs — R. v. Sullivan, 2022 SCC 19 and Miller v. Canada (Attorney General), 2002 FCA 370 applied — Unpleaded matters, including Expropriation Act s. 36 interest and inflationary adjustments, excluded — Limits enforced — Appeal dismissed without costs Procedure — Appeal — Standard of review — Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33 applied, correctness for pure law and palpable and overriding error for factually suffused findings — Whether Federal Court erred in law on remitted issue — Invitation to reweigh expert evidence rejected — Reasons intelligible and legally sufficient — Appeal dismissed without","title":"Milne v. Canada, 2026 FCA 148 (CanLII)","link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca148/2026fca148.html"},{"link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca149/2026fca149.html","title":"Furtado v. Canada (Attorney General), 2026 FCA 149 (CanLII)","description":"Pensions and social benefits — Employment Insurance — Employment Insurance Regulations, subs. 35(2) — Settlement funds received following termination of employment — Whether settlement funds were “earnings” within subs. 35(2) — “Earnings” includes “entire income of a claimant arising out of any employment” — Funds found to have ‘arose’ from contract of service — Application dismissed Administrative law — Jurisdiction — Employment Insurance Act, subs. 90(1) — Canada Revenue Agency ruling on “insurable earnings” — Whether Social Security Tribunal was bound by CRA ruling when calculating “earnings” under Employment Insurance Regulations, subs. 35(2) — Distinction between “insurable earnings” and “earnings” applied — No jurisdictional error found — Application dismissed Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Social Security Tribunal process — Whether right to be heard breached in General Division process — Case conference and document bookmarking system at hearing — Appeal Division’s caution about two-page excerpt of CRA ruling — “Fair hearing but not the most favourable procedures imaginable” — No unfairness demonstrated — Application dismissed Administrative law — Bias — Social Security Tribunal — Allegations of real or reasonably apprehended bias — “Bias is a very serious allegation” and “necessary high standard for success” — Evidence of bias found not to meet the standard — Bias not demonstrated on the part of the SST — Application","id":3135833},{"description":"At the Central Criminal Court 4 September 2026 Sentencing remarks of HHJ Richard Marks KC, the Common Serjeant of London Between: R -v- Michelle Neill The post R -v- Michelle Neill appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","id":3135526,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-michelle-neill/","title":"R -v- Michelle Neill"},{"id":3133952,"description":"Taxation — Income Tax Act — Fraternal benefit society — Life insurance business taxable income — Whether s. 149(4) requires computing taxable life insurance income in isolation — Gross investment revenue under s. 138(9) computed assuming no income or loss from other sources — No blending of life and accident insurance businesses — Appeal allowed Taxation — Income Tax Regulations — Canadian investment fund — Whether Canadian investment fund can be reduced by net liabilities connected to accident insurance assets — Assumption in Income Tax Act, s. 149(4) applies to computation of gross investment revenue — Accident insurance assets and related liabilities excluded from life insurance computation — Tax Court interpretation incorrect — Appeal allowed Taxation — Income Tax Regulations — Designation rules — Whether paragraph 2401(2)(d) permits designating excess mean Canadian investment fund to accident insurance business — Discretion available to multinational life insurer limited by Income Tax Act, s. 149(4) — Excess must be designated to life insurance business on the required assumption — Appeal allowed Statutory interpretation — Income Tax Regulations — Canadian investment fund — Construction of element I in s. 2400(1) — Two-step approach, presumptive inclusion of non-consolidated balance sheet assets — Exclusion only if asset at no time used or held in course of carrying on an insurance business — Tax Court applied wrong legal test to World Surplus — Matter remitted to Tax Court for","title":"Canada v. Independent Order of Foresters, 2026 FCA 146 (CanLII)","link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca146/2026fca146.html"},{"title":"Canada (Revenu national) c. Zeifmans LLP, 2026 CAF 147 (CanLII)","link":"https://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/caf/doc/2026/2026caf147/2026caf147.html","id":3133953,"description":"Fiscalité — Administration et exécution — Demande péremptoire, ordonnance de production — Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu, art. 231.2 et 231.7 — La personne était-elle « tenue » de se conformer? — Privilège des communications entre client et avocat non invoqué — Pouvoir discrétionnaire résiduel discuté — Ordonnance de se conformer rendue en appel — Appel accueilli Interprétation législative — Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu — Autorisation judiciaire préalable — Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu, par. 231.2(2) et 231.2(3) — Canada (Agence des Douanes et du Revenu) c. Artistic Ideas Inc., Redeemer Foundation c. Ministre du Revenu national — Le critère dépend-il de l’objet recherché? — Notion d’« objet principal » écartée — Autorisation préalable non requise — Appel accueilli Preuve — Appréciation — Erreur manifeste et déterminante — Témoignage en contre-interrogatoire, feuille de renseignements — Housen c. Nikolaisen — La preuve établissait-elle que la demande visait une vérification de personnes non désignées nommément? — Témoignage jugé clair — Utilisation éventuelle qualifiée de conjectures — Conclusion infirmée — Appel accueilli Interprétation législative — Validité d’un avis — Imprécision, société de personnes — Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu, par. 244(20) — CJ Zeifmans (CF), CJ Zeifmans (CAF) — Les expressions « autrement apparentées » et « exploitées » rendaient-elles la demande invalide? — Avis réputé remis aux associés — Demande jugée suffisamment précise — Ordonnance maintenue — Appel accueilli Procédure — Abus de procédure — Remise en cause — Toronto (Ville) c. S.C.F.P., section locale 79, Danyluk c. Ainsworth Technologies Inc., Law Society of Saskatchewan c. Abrametz — La contestation dans l’instance en conformité devait-elle être écartée? — Différences avec le contrôle judiciaire jugées insuffisantes — Nouveaux éléments sans incidence — Abus retenu — Appel"},{"title":"Canada c. Martin, 2026 CAF 144 (CanLII)","link":"https://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/caf/doc/2026/2026caf144/2026caf144.html","id":3127814,"description":"Fiscalité — Non-résidents — Revenu imposable gagné au Canada — Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu, par. 2(3) — Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu, sous-al. 115(1)a)(i) — Faut-il déterminer le revenu comme si le seul revenu provient des fonctions exercées au Canada? — Application d’un pourcentage convenu aux fonctions — Appels rejetés Fiscalité — Rémunération d’emploi — Ventilation Canada–États-Unis — Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu, sous-al. 6(1)a)(ii) — Ordre des opérations, exclusion et allocation — Faut-il d’abord appliquer la Loi à l’ensemble de la rémunération puis calculer 40 %? — Ou déterminer d’abord 40 % de la rémunération totale pour services rendus au Canada? — Appels rejetés Fiscalité — Convention de retraite — Cotisations de l’employeur — Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu, par. 248(1) — Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu, partie XI.3 — Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu, par. 207.7(1) — Les cotisations constituent-elles une rémunération pour des fonctions exercées au Canada malgré l’exclusion? — Appels rejetés Interprétation législative — Norme de contrôle — Question d’interprétation — Housen c. Nikolaisen — Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. c. Canada — Placer Dome Canada Ltd. c. Ontario (Ministre des Finances) — Piekut c. Canada (Ministre du Revenu national) — La question relève-t-elle de la décision correcte? — Appels rejetés avec"},{"link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21282/index.do","title":"Dorsey c. Canada (Procureur général) - 2025 CSC 38 - 2025-11-21","description":"Brefs de prérogative Document mis-à-jour le","id":3122927},{"id":3122620,"description":"Procedure — Procedural fairness — Pleadings and issues at trial — Whether Court decided on a basis not anchored in pleadings, evidence, or parties’ positions — Fair market value treated as in dispute despite concessions — Failure to give opportunity to adduce valuation evidence — Error of law and unfairness found — Appeal allowed, assessment vacated Taxation — Income Tax Act — Derivative liability — Income Tax Act, s. 160(1) — Whether transferee liability applies to share sale structure — Transfers to non-arm’s length person and limited liability for excess value — After-tax position compared to direct sale — Section 160 held not to apply — Appeal allowed, assessment vacated Taxation — Income Tax Act — Arm’s length dealing — Income Tax Act, ss. 160, 251 — Whether Appellant and Abacus group were not dealing at arm’s length — Alleged “premium” and “wilfully blind” findings tied to rejected valuation premise — No evidence of arrangement to share unpaid tax liability — Palpable and overriding error found — Section 160 inapplicable — Appeal allowed, cross-appeal dismissed Taxation — Income Tax Act — Fair market value consideration — Eyeball Networks Inc. v. Canada; Income Tax Act, s. 160 — Whether consideration must be valued by a “snapshot” at time of transfer — Payment of bona fide debt under promissory note — Preferred shares and directions, escrow arrangements, trust accounts — Fair market value consideration found equal to transfers — Assessment vacated Taxation — Income Tax Act — General Anti-Avoidance Rule — Deans Knight Income Corp. v. Canada; Income Tax Act, s. 245 — Whether creation and sale of voting shares were avoidance transactions — Transactions did not produce alleged tax benefit — No misuse or abuse of s. 160 where arm’s length and full consideration — GAAR held not to apply — Appeal allowed, assessment vacated, cross-appeal","title":"Harvard Properties Inc. v. Canada, 2026 FCA 142 (CanLII)","link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca142/2026fca142.html"},{"id":3122621,"description":"Constitution — Charte canadienne des droits et libertés — Loi canadienne sur les droits de la personne, art. 53 — Plafonds à l’al. 53(2)e) et au par. 53(3) — Les plafonds contreviennent-ils au par. 15(1)? — Cadre à deux volets, Québec (Procureur général) c. Kanyinda — Fraser c. Canada (Procureur général), R. c. Sharma — Appels rejetés Constitution — Égalité — Analyse comparative — Groupes de comparaison — Rejet du « contexte socio-politique pertinent » — Withler c. Canada (Procureur général), Andrews c. Law Society of British Columbia — Comparaison avec la common law, Martin; R. c. C.P. — La Cour fédérale a-t-elle mal appliqué la première étape? — Appel rejeté Droits et libertés — Preuve d’effet disproportionné — Discrimination par suite d’un effet préjudiciable — Preuve statistique et affidavits — Weatherley c. Canada (Procureur général), Begum c. Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration) — La preuve établissait-elle un effet disproportionné? — Critiques de méthode, poids accordé — Preuve jugée insuffisante, Appel rejeté Preuve — Experts — Contre-interrogatoire — Browne v. Dunn — Duel d’experts, méthodologie contestée — R. v. Quansah — La Cour fédérale pouvait-elle retenir des critiques non posées en contre-interrogatoire? — Possibilité de répondre en réplique reconnue — Aucun vice retenu, Appel","title":"Canada (Alliance de la Fonction publique) c. Canada, 2026 CAF 143 (CanLII)","link":"https://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/caf/doc/2026/2026caf143/2026caf143.html"},{"title":"R. c. W.W. - 2025 CSC 37 - 2025-11-14","link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21269/index.do","id":3122056,"description":"Document mis-à-jour le"},{"id":3121312,"description":"Droit des personnes Procédure civile Document mis-à-jour le","title":"Riddle c. ivari - 2026 CSC 9 - 2026-04-10","link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21464/index.do"},{"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/the-general-medical-council-v-dr-ali-shokouri-amiri/","title":"The General Medical Council -v- Dr Ali Shokouri-Amiri","description":"Case Nos: AC-2025-LON-000876 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Administrative Court Date: 28/08/2026 Before : The Honourable Mr Justice Morris Between : The General Medical Council -v- Dr Ali Shokouri-Amiri The post The General Medical Council -v- Dr Ali Shokouri-Amiri appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","id":3121311},{"id":3120428,"description":"Four new U.S. Supreme Court Fellows are set to begin their 2026-2027 fellowships in","title":"New Supreme Court Fellows Set to Begin Term","link":"http://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/judiciary-news/2026/08/27/new-supreme-court-fellows-set-begin-term"},{"title":"Bent c. Platnick - 2020 CSC 23 - [2020] 2 RCS 645 - 2020-09-10","link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/18459/index.do","id":3120427,"description":"Preuve Tribunaux Document mis-à-jour le"},{"description":"Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWCOP 43 (T3) Case No: 13698857 In the Court of Protection 26 August 2026 Before: The Honourable Mr Justice McKendrick Between: NHS North East London ICB -v- FHR (By his litigation friend the Official Solicitor) FN (His Mother) FZR (His father) The post NHS North East London ICB -v- FHR and others appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","id":3118465,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/nhs-north-east-london-icb-v-fhr-and-others/","title":"NHS North East London ICB -v- FHR and others"},{"link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca140/2026fca140.html","title":"Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Wahab, 2026 FCA 140 (CanLII)","description":"Citizenship and immigration — Inadmissibility — Human and international rights violations — Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, para. 35(1)(b), Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, s. 16 — Whether decision maker must consider non-refoulement in interpreting para. 35(1)(b) — Prescribed senior official and deportation order at admissibility stage — Certified question reformulated and answered affirmatively — Appeal dismissed Statutory interpretation — Modern approach — International law as constraint — Refugee Convention, Article 33 — Whether Mason and Weldemariam apply to para. 35(1)(b) interpretation — Presumption that the Act operates in conformity with international obligations, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, para. 3(3)(f) — Competing interpretations assessed for compliance with non-refoulement — Appeal dismissed Administrative law — Judicial review — Reasonableness — Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, Mason v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) — Whether Immigration Division decision lacked responsive justification given harsh consequences — Failure to consider a critical legal constraint, non-refoulement, in reasons — Decision set aside as unreasonable and matter remitted to a different panel — Appeal","id":3115043},{"id":3115044,"description":"Pensions et prestations sociales — Assurance-emploi — Prestations de maternité et parentales — Loi sur l’assurance-emploi, par. 52(1) et 52(5) — Réexamen d’une demande au-delà de 36 mois — Exemption de déclarations bimensuelles — Omission de signaler un retour au travail et une rémunération — Prolongation à 72 mois refusée — Demande de contrôle judiciaire rejetée Interprétation législative — Loi sur l’assurance-emploi — « Déclaration ou affirmation » au par. 52(5) — Omission de déclarer des renseignements — Exemption de déclarations bimensuelles — Le défaut de déclarer un retour au travail est-il une déclaration ou affirmation? — Comparaison avec l’al. 38(1)a) — J. S., B. S. appliqués — Interprétation confirmée — Demande rejetée Preuve — Preuve d’une fausse déclaration — Déclaration d’intention dans la demande — Absence d’éléments contredisant l’intention au dépôt — Relevé d’emploi initial concordant — Le défaut subséquent de respecter l’intention démontre-t-il une déclaration fausse ou trompeuse? — Canada (Procureur général) c. Dussault, Canada (Procureur général) c. Langelier distingués — Conclusion maintenue — Demande rejetée Interprétation législative — Méthodes d’interprétation — Exclusion implicite — Texte, objet et économie de la loi — Green c. Barreau du Manitoba — La comparaison par. 52(5) et al. 38(1)a) rend-elle l’interprétation déraisonnable? — Pouvoir de réexamen et limites temporelles — Laforest, Brière cités — Interprétation jugée raisonnable — Demande rejetée Droit administratif — Contrôle judiciaire — Décision raisonnable — Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration) c. Vavilov, Mason c. Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration) — La division d’appel a-t-elle appliqué le critère des « motifs raisonnables » au par. 52(5)? — Motifs lus globalement — Justification intelligible et transparente — Demande de contrôle judiciaire","title":"Canada (Procureur général) c. Emamifar, 2026 CAF 141 (CanLII)","link":"https://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/caf/doc/2026/2026caf141/2026caf141.html"},{"id":3110566,"description":"In the Crown Court at Preston 21 August 2026 Sentencing Remarks of HHJ Altham Between: R -v- Brendan O’Hagan Amanda Kelly Humeera Atiq Nisar Mohammed Malik Alma Yaniv The post R -v- O’Hagan and others appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","title":"R -v- O’Hagan and others","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-ohagan-and-others/"},{"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/various-claimants-v-associated-newspapers-limited-2/","title":"Various Claimants -v- Associated Newspapers Limited","description":"Case No: KB-2022-003316 KB-2022-003317 KB-2022-003318 KB-2022-003340 KB-2022-003357 KB-2022-003404 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Media & Communications List Date: 21 August 2026 Before : The Honourable Mr Justice Nicklin Between : (1) Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon OBE (2) Elizabeth Hurley (3) Sir Elton John CH CBE (4) David Furnish (5) Sir Simon Hughes (6) Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex (7) Sadie Frost Law Claimants -v- Associated Newspapers Limited The post Various Claimants -v- Associated Newspapers Limited appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","id":3110567},{"description":"At the Central London Criminal Court 21 August 2026 Sentencing Remarks of His Honour Judge Marks K.C Between: R -v- Eugeniu Neamtu The post R -v- Eugeniu Neamtu appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","id":3109658,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-eugeniu-neamtu/","title":"R -v- Eugeniu Neamtu"},{"description":"Case number: AC-2025-LON-001725 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Administrative Court In the matter of an application for judicial review 19 August 2026 Before: Richard Clayton KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge Between: The King on the application of GTV (Claimant) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (Defendant) Order Notification of the Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12) Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service ORDER BY RICHARD CLAYTON KC SITTING AS A DPEUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE Anonymity : (a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998: (i) the Claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and (ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as GTV. (b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings. (c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4): (i) the parties must within 7 days file a redacted copy of any statement of case filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant; (ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time; (iii) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case. (d) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party. Permission : Permission to apply for judicial review is refused. Costs : The Claimant must pay the Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, summarily assessed in the sum of £ 1,708. Further provision as to costs : (a) Where the Claimant does not make a valid request for reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission to apply for judicial review (see notes below): (i) Within 14 days of the date of this Order, the Claimant may file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages) showing why the order in paragraph 2 should not be made. The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount assessed. (ii) If the Claimant does not file and serve a notice of objection within that period, paragraph 2 is a final order and the Claimant must pay the sum specified within 14 days of the date of this Order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)). (iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (i) above: the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages); if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which the other party’s submissions in response are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages); the Court will determine what costs order to make on the papers; any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the Court specifies another date. (b) Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below): (i) Paragraph 2 does not become final as respects the costs payable to any party unless, insofar as it relates to that party: the Claimant withdraws the application for permission; or permission to apply for judicial review is refused on all grounds after a hearing. (ii) If the Claimant wishes to contend that the order in paragraph 2 should not be made even if permission is refused on all grounds, the Claimant must within 14 days after the date of this Order file and serve (together with the","id":3106015,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/gtv-v-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-anonymity-order/","title":"GTV -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)"},{"title":"From Fellows to Mentors: Alumni Share Lasting Lessons from Courts with the Next Generation","link":"http://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/judiciary-news/2026/08/18/fellows-mentors-alumni-share-lasting-lessons-courts-next-generation","id":3102696,"description":"Annabel Rodriguez grew up in Boston in a Spanish-speaking home where, from childhood, she was the family translator and advocate. She didn’t think a career in law was within her reach until she got a unique opportunity in college to enroll in a fellowship at the federal"},{"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/cx-no-2-domestic-abuse-no-contact/","title":"CX (No 2) (Domestic abuse: No contact)","description":"Chris Smith https://www.judiciary.uk/?post_type=judgment#038;p=129637 2026-08-13T14:30:38Z 2026-08-13T14:30:37Z Chris Smith https://www.judiciary.uk/?post_type=judgment#038;p=129753 2026-08-14T14:05:20Z 2026-08-13T13:53:59Z Chris Smith https://www.judiciary.uk/?post_type=judgment#038;p=129547 2026-08-12T13:26:51Z 2026-08-12T13:26:50Z Chris Smith https://www.judiciary.uk/?post_type=judgment#038;p=129536 2026-08-12T10:33:13Z 2026-08-12T10:33:12Z Chris Smith https://www.judiciary.uk/?post_type=judgment#038;p=129340 2026-08-07T11:33:38Z 2026-08-07T11:33:37Z Chris Smith https://www.judiciary.uk/?post_type=judgment#038;p=129253 2026-08-12T13:26:23Z 2026-08-05T14:02:17Z Chris Smith https://www.judiciary.uk/?post_type=judgment#038;p=129208 2026-08-04T10:57:06Z","id":3102695},{"link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca139/2026fca139.html","title":"Sahadeo v. Canada (Attorney General), 2026 FCA 139 (CanLII)","description":"Public Service — Labour relations — Grievances Administrative law — Judicial review — Standard of","id":3100496},{"id":3095205,"description":"Droit constitutionnel Droit professionnel Document mis-à-jour le","title":"Krieger c. Law Society of Alberta - 2002 CSC 65 - [2002] 3 RCS 372 - 2002-10-10","link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/2007/index.do"},{"id":3095206,"description":"Droit administratif Droit municipal Document mis-à-jour le","title":"United Taxi Drivers' Fellowship of Southern Alberta c. Calgary (Ville) - 2004 CSC 19 - [2004] 1 RCS 485 - 2004-03-25","link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/2131/index.do"},{"id":3095204,"description":"Case number: URN: 43SW0010826 At Reading Magistrates’ Court 13 August 2026 Before: Sundeep Pankhania, District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) Between: R -v- Andre John Paul Walker The post R -v- Andre John Paul Walker appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","title":"R -v- Andre John Paul Walker","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-andre-john-paul-walker/"},{"description":"Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWHC 2172 (Admin) Case No: AC-2026-LON-002538 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Referral of a Release Decision pursuant to S.32ZAA of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 14 August 2026 Before: Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb DBE Between: Secretary of State for Justice -v- Glyn Razzell (HV4928) The post Secretary of State for Justice -v- Glyn Razzell appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","id":3094436,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/secretary-of-state-for-justice-v-glyn-razzell/","title":"Secretary of State for Justice -v- Glyn Razzell"},{"description":"Judges and Courts — Tax Court of Canada — Discretion — Tax Court of Canada Rules, Rules 4(1), 4(2) Practice — Confidentiality","id":3093984,"link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca138/2026fca138.html","title":"Canada v. CAE Inc., 2026 FCA 138 (CanLII)"},{"id":3093538,"description":"Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWHC 2165 (Ch) Case No: IL-2023-000132 In the High Court of Justice Business and Property Courts of England and Wales Intellectual Property List (ChD) 13 August 2026 Before: Mrs Justice Bacon Between: (1) ROADGET BUSINESS PTE. LTD (a company incorporated in Singapore) (2) SHEIN DISTRIBUTION UK LTD -v- WhaleCo UK Limited The post Roadget Business PTE. Ltd -v- WhaleCo UK Limited appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","title":"Roadget Business PTE. Ltd -v- WhaleCo UK Limited","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/roadget-business-pte-ltd-v-whaleco-uk-limited/"},{"title":"R -v- Adina Mihai and Madalin Dumitru","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-adina-mihai-and-madalin-dumitru/","id":3093539,"description":"In the Crown Court at Oxford 13 August 2026 Sentencing remarks of Mrs Justice Brunner Between: R -v- Adina Mihai and Madalin Dumitru The post R -v- Adina Mihai and Madalin Dumitru appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary"},{"id":3092236,"description":"Citizenship and Immigration — Exclusion and removal — Removal of refugees Practice — Stay of proceedings — Immigration","title":"Slepcsik v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FCA 137 (CanLII)","link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca137/2026fca137.html"},{"title":"R -v- Simon Levy","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-simon-levy/","id":3091826,"description":"At the Central Criminal Court 12 August 2026 Sentencing remarks of HHJ Lucraft KC Between: R -v- Simon Levy The post R -v- Simon Levy appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary"},{"id":3090815,"description":"Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWHC 2157 (Admin) Case No: AC-2026-LON-002601 AC-2026-LON-002666 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Administrative Court 12 August 2026 Before: The Hon Mrs Justice Steyn DBE Between: The King on the application of (1) SHAHIRA SADAT (2) ROKHSAR RAHIMI (3) ALAA KHALIFA (4) LINDA LEOGAH FORKWA -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department and between: The King on the application of (1) RAZAN AWAD FAGEER FARAH (2) RAWAN SIDDIG BABIKER ALI (3) RAWAN RAAD HASSAN ELRUFAI -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department The post Sadat and others -v- Home Secretary, and others appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","title":"Sadat and others -v- Home Secretary, and others","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/sadat-and-others-v-home-secretary-and-others/"},{"description":"Labour relations — Collective agreement Administrative law — Judicial review —","id":3088730,"link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca136/2026fca136.html","title":"British Columbia Maritime Employers Association v. International Longshore & Warehouse Union‐Canada, 2026 FCA 136 (CanLII)"},{"title":"Lounge Medical Spa Ltd. v. DermaSpark Products Inc., 2026 FCA 135 (CanLII)","link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca135/2026fca135.html","id":3083485,"description":"Trademarks — Infringement — Passing off Practice — Judgments and orders — Clarification of"},{"description":"Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWHC 2107 (KB) Case No: QB-2022-002405 and others In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division 7 August 2026 Before: The Honourable Mr Justice Constable Between: Various claimants -v- Mercedes-Benz Group AG and others Ford Motor Company and others Nissan Motor Co Ltd and others Stellantis Auto SAS and others and others The post Various claimants -v- Mercedes-Benz Group AG and others appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","id":3081877,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/various-claimants-v-mercedes-benz-group-ag-and-others-3/","title":"Various claimants -v- Mercedes-Benz Group AG and others"}]