What’s Hot on CanLII This Week

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

1. Bruni v. Bruni 2010 ONSC 6568 (Back again for a re-run, thanks to notes in a couple of UK blogs: The Motley Fool and Roll On Friday, such is the power of notoriety.)

[1] Paging Dr. Freud. Paging Dr. Freud.

[2] This is yet another case that reveals the ineffectiveness of Family Court in a bitter custody/access dispute, where the parties require therapeutic intervention rather than legal attention. Here, a husband and wife have been marinating in a mutual hatred so intense as to surely amount to a personality disorder requiring treatment.

[3] In addition to the volatile issues of custody and access, this application raises a question as to whether grounds exist to set aside the separation agreement of the parties.

[4] Then follows a mash of issues . . .

2. Avila v. CUPE Local 1600 2012 HRTO 167

[3] The applicant commenced employment with the Toronto Zoo in 2006. He applied to the employer’s insurer for long term disability benefits (“LTD”) in January of 2008. The LTD is a term of the collective agreement between the Toronto Zoo and CUPE, Local 1600. His claim was denied in April of 2008. The applicant did not appeal this decision. The respondents state that they were not aware of the denial of the claim until 2010.

3. Holmes v. Lerners LLP2012 ONSC 2566

[1] This is an application under Rule 14.05. The applicant asks for an order that the respondent law firm’s bill be assessed. The materials on the motion were sealed by Gordon J. to protect solicitor/client privilege. They remain sealed. This endorsement need not be sealed, as I have not found it necessary to quote privileged communications.

The most often-consulted French-language decision was, returning after a gap for yet another week, Industries Lassonde inc. c. Oasis d’Olivia inc. 2012 QCCA 593

[2] Les appelantes sont détentrices de la marque de commerce « OASIS » et de nombreuses marques y associées, comme « Oasis Florida Premium », « Oasis Sélection » et « Oasis Classique », utilisées essentiellement à l’égard de jus, boissons et sorbets. Elles sont aussi détentrices de la marque « OLINDA » en association avec de l’huile d’olive.

[3] En 2006, d’avis qu’il y avait risque de confusion avec ses marques de commerce, les appelantes intentent des procédures en injonction permanente, en remboursement de profits et en dommages « exemplaires et punitifs », contre l’intimée, qui utilise la marque de commerce « Olivia’s Oasis » en association avec des produits de soins corporels, dont des savons, et qui demandait, à l’époque, son enregistrement (obtenu en juillet 2010).

Comments are closed.