Here are the three most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for the week of November 14 – 21.
♨ 1. Ontario Korean Businessmen’s Assoc. v. Seung Jin Oh 2011 ONSC 6991 [1]
[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.
(Second week in a row at #1. Unclear what’s driving this.)
♨ 2. Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch 2011 ONCA 764 [2]
[5] In the months following the amendments to Rule 20, it has become a matter of some controversy and uncertainty as to whether it is appropriate for a motion judge to use the new powers conferred by the amended Rule 20 to decide an action on the basis of the evidence presented on a motion for summary judgment. Judges of the Superior Court of Justice have expressed differing views on this and other interpretative issues raised by the amendments. Both the bench and the bar have turned to this court for clarification on what the amended rule does, and does not, accomplish.
[6] To provide some guidance to the profession, this court convened a five-judge panel to hear five appeals from decisions under the amended rule.
♨ 3. Canadian Taxpayers Federation v. Ontario (Minister of Finance) 2004 CanLII 48177 (ON SC) [3]
[1] This is an application by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (“CTF”) and its federal director, John Williamson, against Her Majesty The Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Finance, Greg Sorbara and against Dalton J. P. McGuinty. The applicants seek to declare that the legislation establishing the Ontario Health Premium is invalid or ultra vires. The applicants also seek a declaration that a promise made in writing by Mr. McGuinty on September 11, 2003, is a contract with the CTF and that Mr. McGuinty is in breach of this contract or, in the alternative, that this promise was a negligent misrepresentation.
This item is notable because it became prominent very quickly on the strength of a single tweet (retweeted): http://topsy.com/canlii.ca/t/1jh71
The most-consulted French-language decision is Martineau c. Société Canadian Tire ltée 2011 QCCA 2198 [4].
[6] Martineau soutient que l’intimée (Canadian Tire) a commis un dol par réticence au moment de proroger son contrat de marchand en octobre 1999[2]. Il prétend que, à l’époque, Canadian Tire lui a caché ses projets d’implantation de deux magasins dans le même secteur commercial où est située son entreprise.