In its ruling, Supreme Court justices Louis LeBel and Thomas Cromwell wrote: «In our view, the text, context, and
purpose of the legislation clearly show that there is no authority in the Tribunal to award legal costs and that there is no other reasonable interpretation of the relevant provisions.
Not exact matches
Under the
legislation, the corporation (i.e. the directors) is not required to comply with the requisition if, for example, it «
clearly appears that the proposal has been submitted by [the group] primarily for the
purpose of enforcing a personal claim or redressing a personal grievance against the corporation, its directors, officers or security holders -LSB-...].»
In McCormick v. Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, 2014 SCC 39, the Supreme Court
of Canada
clearly stated that control and dependency define the essence
of the employment relationship for the
purposes of human rights
legislation.
Most
of these motions were to change custody or visitation, not to enforce parenting time... If the desire
of the
legislation was to make it easier for unhappy parents to enforce their visitation time, its
purpose was
clearly not met... «Constitutionalizing child custody, or litigating in terms
of individual parents» rights, is likely to harm children in many ways.