Here are the three most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for the week of July 16 – 23.
♨ 1a. Miguna v. Toronto Police Services Board 2008 ONCA 799 [This opinion refers to an earlier opinion in the matter; as a result, there are two related cases essentially tied for first place.]
 For the second time in three years Miguna Miguna’s statement of claim has come to this Court entirely – or, in this case, almost entirely – struck down. In the action he claims damages against the prosecution and police defendants for conduct arising out of his arrest, trial and acquittal on three charges of sexual assault. Although the action was commenced in July, 2004, no statements of defence have yet been delivered. I have concluded that it is time they were.
♨ 1b. Miguna v. Ontario (Attorney General) 2005 CanLII 46385
♨ 2. Lundy v. VIA Rail Canada Inc. 2012 ONSC 4152
 In the case at bar, which is a proposed class action, without obtaining court permission, Via Rail Canada Inc. (“Via Rail”) and Canadian National Railway Company (“CNR”), the defendants in the proposed class action, communicated with several putative class members, who had been passengers on a train that derailed on route to Toronto. Via Rail and CNR made a settlement offer to the putative class members. Although Via Rail and CNR did not know it, some of the putative class members already had a lawyer and client relationships with proposed class counsel.
 Mr. Triffon is charged with attempting to “obstruct or pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding by threatening to use his vote, position and influence as a jury member to cause a ‘hung jury’ irrespective of the evidence at trial.”
The most-consulted French-language decision was Senécal c. Cégep du Vieux Montréal 2012 QCCS 1995.
1) Le Cégep avait-il le droit de résilier le mandat de Mme Senécal comme il l’a fait?
2) Mme Senécal a-t-elle le droit de recevoir compensation à la suite de la résiliation de son mandat par le Cégep défendeur et, si oui, pour quel montant?