Today

What’s Hot on CanLII This Week

Here are the three most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for the week of February 1 – 7.

1. Reece v. Rumney et al 2012 ONSC 780

[1] This is a motion by the Plaintiff for an Order setting aside the verdict of the jury delivered on December 8, 2011 on the basis that there was no evidence to support the jury’s findings and for an Order that:

(a) the action be retried with another jury; or

(b) a verdict be delivered by the trial judge (the plaintiff acknowledged at the motion that this likely was not a realistic solution).

2. Howell v. Yourk 2012 ONSC 766

[1] After a thirteen day jury trial on a pedestrian motor vehicle accident case, the plaintiff was awarded damages totalling $481,000. The jury verdict exceeded the amounts set out in the plaintiff’s offer to settle. The plaintiff seeks his costs, inclusive of disbursements, totalling $431,353.12, relying in part on an offer served pursuant to rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

3. Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Health) 2012 SCC 3

[3] . . . . [These appeals] arise out of requests for information which had been provided to government by a manufacturer as part of the new drug approval process. In order to get approval to market new drugs, innovator pharmaceutical companies, such as the appellant Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. (“Merck”), are required to disclose a great deal of information to the government regulator, the respondent Health Canada, including a lot of material that they, with good reason, do not want to fall into their competitors’ hands. But competitors, like everyone else in Canada, are entitled to the disclosure of government information under the Access to Information Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1 (the “Act” or “ATI”).

The most-consulted French-language decision was R. c. Sault Ste. Marie [1978] 2 RCS 1299

Dans le présent pourvoi, la Cour doit examiner des infractions diversement appelées infractions «statutaires», «réglementaires», «contre le bien-être public», «de responsabilité absolue» ou «de responsabilité stricte». Ces infractions ne sont pas criminelles au plein sens du terme, mais sont prohibées dans l’intérêt public. (Sherras v. De Rutzen[3]) Bien qu’appliquées comme lois pénales par le truchement de la procédure criminelle, ces infractions sont essentiellement de nature civile et pourraient fort bien être considérées comme une branche du droit administratif à laquelle les principes traditionnels du droit criminel ne s’appliquent que de façon limitée. Elles se rapportent à des questions quotidiennes, telles les contraventions à la circulation, la vente de nourriture contaminée, les violations de lois sur les boissons alcooliques et autres infractions semblables. Le présent pourvoi a pour objet la pollution.

Comments are closed.