What’s Hot on CanLII This Week

Here are the three most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for the week of November 28 – December 5.

1. Ontario Korean Businessmen’s Assoc. v. Seung Jin Oh 2011 ONSC 6991

[1] A dispute exists amongst the members of the Ontario Korean Businessmen’s Association (the “Association”) as to which group of members is entitled to govern the Association.

2. Ornstein v. Starr 2011 ONSC 4220

Seven Words of Discovery
1. Q. Please state your full name for the record
A. Joseph Auby Starr.
2. Q. And you are a doctor
A. I am.
3. Q. And do you have a specialty?
A. Plastic surgery.
4. Q. And how long have you been carrying on as a plastic surgeon?
Counsel: Don’t answer that.

3. R v Spencer 2011 SKCA 144

[17] Given Mr. Spencer was using his computer inside his home to access child pornography, Mr. Spencer undoubtedly held a subjective expectation of privacy in the Disclosed Information; but was his expectation objectively reasonable, having regard for the totality of the circumstances?

See also R v Trapp 2011 SKCA 143, the associated case. These are likely to incur some media commentary and analysis, dealing as they do with privacy, computers and the criminal law search power.

The most-consulted French-language opinion was R. c. Bouchard-Lebrun 2011 CSC 58.

[1] Dans ce pourvoi, la Cour doit décider si une psychose toxique résultant d’un état d’intoxication dans lequel un accusé s’est volontairement placé en consommant des drogues chimiques constitue un « troubl[e] menta[l] » au sens de l’art. 16 du Code criminel, L.R.C. 1985, ch. C-46 (« C. cr. »), et permet ainsi à l’appelant d’échapper à sa responsabilité pénale pour une infraction comportant une atteinte à l’intégrité physique d’autrui.


  1. in Ornstein v. Starr 2011 ONSC 4220 it’s appropriate (?) ironic (?) that the decision was by Master Short.

    Amongst the Master’s laconic observations (from the school of what goes around …)

    In an example of what goes around

    [64] Somewhat surprisingly, the second case relied upon by the plaintiff is Couperthwaite v. Damboise (c.o.b. Norm’s Home Heating), [2003] O.J. No. 1641; 122 A.C.W.S. (3d) 839 . In 2003, the plaintiff’s examining counsel in the matter before me, acted for the defendant Damboise in that action, where he appears to have employed a similar approach to counsel for the defendants in the present case. I found the lessons in the reasons of Master MacLeod, in which he chastised counsel’s tactics, instructive. The headnote indicates in part;

    “Damboise’s counsel refused to allow answers or gave undertakings on hundreds of questions. The objections began at the sixth question, when counsel objected to Damboise being asked to confirm he was married and had children. The examination was constantly interrupted by counsel who insisted on taking questions under advisement and answering questions on his client’s behalf. Couperthwaite sought an order for a new examination for discovery, arguing that the transcript of the original examination was of no value due to Damboise’s counsel’s interference and the substantial number of questions previously refused that were now to be answered.”

    [65] Master MacLeod specifically observed:

    21 The transcript is replete with similar examples. That is not how a discovery should be conducted. Counsel – intentionally or not – cannot “run interference” for the client….”