Today

What’s Hot on CanLII This Week

Here are the three most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for the week of January 17 – 24.

1. Jones v. Tsige 2012 ONCA 32

[1] Does Ontario law recognize a right to bring a civil action for damages for the invasion of personal privacy?

2. R. v. Rose 2012 ONSC 350

[1] Mr. Rose is charged with four counts of possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking, four counts of possession of a controlled substance, and possession of property obtained by crime. He brings this application pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter for an order excluding from evidence the controlled substances found on his person in violation of his rights guaranteed by sections 8, 9, 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter.

3. Cannon v. Funds for Canada Foundation 2012 ONSC 399

[1] When Michael Cannon heard about the Donations for Canada Gift Program – an opportunity to obtain a $10,000 charitable tax credit in return for a $2,500 donation – he thought it was “too good to be true”.

[2] It was.

[3] A few years later, his tax returns were reassessed by Canada Revenue Agency (“C.R.A.”) and he had to repay his deductions, with interest. The only thing he received for his “donation” was a tax bill.

The most-consulted French language case was Droit de la famille — 102866 2010 QCCA 1978 [English translation available]

[11] Les conjoints de fait au Québec sont-ils victimes de discrimination au sens de l’article 15 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés de la personne (Charte) parce que le Code civil du Québec (C.c.Q.) ne leur accorde pas de droit à des aliments, au partage du patrimoine familial, à la protection de la résidence familiale, à la société d’acquêts et à la prestation compensatoire[1]?

[12] La question est importante puisque, au Québec, en 2006, 34,6 % des couples étaient conjoints de fait, soit 1,2 million de personnes, alors que dans le reste du Canada 18,4 % des couples vivaient en union de fait[2]. En outre, en 2002, 60 % des enfants naissaient hors mariage[3].

In this regard see the good summaries from Educaloi:
English: http://www.educaloi.qc.ca/en/publicforum/story127/
French: http://www.educaloi.qc.ca/placepublique/dossier127/

And, finally, some aggregate data. After just over three weeks into the new year CanLII has had >500K visits from >than 150K unique visitors, generating >5M pageviews over the course of >100K hours of usage.

Retweet information »

Comments

  1. Cannon v. Funds for Canada Foundation 2012 ONSC 399

    [17] To make the Gift Program work, it was necessary to have six ingredients.

    [18] First, there had to be taxpayers, like Cannon, who were willing to buy into the concept that they could maximize their tax deductions not just by giving money to charity, but by getting a receipt for more than they had actually given – that is, by making a profit from their charitable donations. There were almost 10,000 Canadians who were convinced to do this. They came from all walks of life, teachers, lawyers, nurses, administrators, presidents and police officers. Some donated in multiple years. The minimum donation was $10,000, but one enthusiastic donor made total donations of $4,000,000. Over 1,700 Donors donated between $50,000.00 and $100,000.00 each, and over 700 Donors donated over $100,000.00 each.

    [53] There is evidence that the total returns through the Gift Program to the charities have been in the range of $6 million since 2006. Considering that the aggregate donations by Canadian taxpayers to the Gift Program were in excess of $140 million, this rate of return is less than 1% per annum on the contributors’ donations and is an infinitesimal return on the total supersized donation that taxpayers were allegedly making to support the inflated charitable donation receipts that they received.

    [44] The evidence is open to the conclusion that the primary purpose of the Gift Program was to benefit Furtak and his family …

    Gordon Gecko’s view?

    Bill Maher has the last word.