What’s Hot on CanLII This Week

Here are the three most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for the week of July 1 – 8.

♨ 1. Fry v. Chief Electoral Officer 2012 ONSC 3866

[1] The applicants are in breach of the Canada Elections Act[1] by reason of their failure to comply with the requirement that they pay their leadership expenses by December 31, 2011 pursuant to the order of Kane, J., dated January 28, 2010, and seek an order permitting an extension of time to pay their respective expenses. The respondent opposes their application.

♨ 2. Clements v. Clements 2012 SCC 32

[1] The parties to this appeal, Mr. and Mrs. Clements, were motor bike enthusiasts. August 7th, 2004, found them en route from their home in Prince George, British Columbia, to visit their daughter in Kananaskis, Alberta. The weather was wet. Mr. Clements was driving the bike and Mrs. Clements was riding behind on the passenger seat. The bike was about 100 pounds overloaded. Unbeknownst to Mr. Clements, a nail had punctured the bike’s rear tire. Though Mr. Clements was travelling in a 100 km/h zone, he accelerated to at least 120 km/h in order to pass a car. As he crossed the centre line to commence the passing manoeuvre, the nail fell out, the rear tire deflated, and the bike began to wobble. Mr. Clements was unable to bring the bike under control and it crashed, throwing Mrs. Clements off. Mrs. Clements suffered a severe traumatic brain injury. She now sues Mr. Clements, claiming that her injury was caused by his negligence in the operation of the bike.

♨ 3. Martineau and al. v. The Matsqui Institution Inmate Disciplinary Board [1978] 1 SCR 118 [? A blast from the past, and frequently cited… But still, it’s unclear why it should be popular now.]

Narrow as the issue in this appeal may be in a formal sense, it goes to the heart of the jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal Court of Appeal to review decisions or orders of administrative tribunals. Especially is this so here where the vice complained of is a failure to accord natural justice to the appellants in disregard of the directives applicable to them and under which they become liable to punishment if a finding is made of their guilt of a flagrant or serious offence, within the meaning of those directives.

The most-consulted French-language decision was R. c. Venneri 2012 CSC 33 [which only made it to 10th place in its English translation]

[1] L’intimé, Carmelo Venneri, a subi son procès conjointement avec deux autres personnes, supposément membres d’une organisation criminelle, pour répondre à plusieurs chefs d’accusation. Le juge du procès a déclaré M. Venneri coupable de huit infractions, notamment de perpétration d’une infraction au profit d’une organisation criminelle (troisième chef), infraction prévue à l’art. 467.12 du Code criminel, L.R.C. 1985, ch. 46; d’avoir chargé une personne de commettre une infraction au profit d’une organisation criminelle (cinquième chef), infraction prévue à l’art. 467.13 du Code; et de possession de cocaïne en vue d’en faire le trafic (quatrième chef), infraction prévue au par. 5(2) de la Loi réglementant certaines drogues et autres substances, L.C. 1996, ch. 19 2009 QCCQ 1916 (CanLII), (2009 QCCQ 1916 (CanLII)).