What’s Hot on CanLII This Week

Here are the three most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for the week of July 23 – 31.

1. Ivens v. Lesperance 2012 ONSC 4280

[3] The defendant seeks an order or declaration that the plaintiff’s claim for non-pecuniary losses is barred by s. 267.5 of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I(8). This section of the Act stipulates that the owner of an automobile is not liable in an action for non pecuniary losses, unless the injured person has sustained “a permanent, serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function”. The defendant therefore submits that the plaintiff’s claim for general damages is barred by s. 266(1) of the Insurance Act.

2. R. v. Punko 2012 SCC 39

[1] These appeals concern the application of the doctrine of issue estoppel, as clarified by this Court in R. v. Mahalingan, 2008 SCC 63 (CanLII), 2008 SCC 63, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 316, in the context of a multi-issue jury trial. The specific question may be stated as follows: Is the Crown estopped from seeking to prove that the East End Chapter of the Hells Angels (“Hells Angels”) is a criminal organization, on the basis that the issue was decided adversely to the Crown in a prior jury trial? For the reasons that follow, I would answer this question in the negative and dismiss the appeals.

3. Sun Life Assurance Company v. Dynasty Spas 2012 ONSC 4304

[3] The plaintiff issued the statement of claim on July 15, 2009, seeking damages against Dynasty and Williams for rent payable under the lease and damages arising from the removal of chattels, assets and inventory from the leased premises. The plaintiff also alleges that before abandoning the lease, Dynasty transferred funds and assets to various corporations and individuals and claims a declaration that Dynasty’s alleged transfer of monies, assets, business and opportunities from itself to the co-defendants Polar Spas Ontario Inc. and 732311 Alberta Ltd., and its transfer of monies or assets to the defendant Williams and to the co-defendants Marsall Brent and Ken Nikel are void as against Dynasty’s creditors as fraudulent conveyances.

The most-consulted French-language decision was R. c. Punko 2012 CSC 39

[1] Les présents pourvois portent sur l’application de la doctrine de la préclusion découlant d’une question déjà tranchée, telle que l’a clarifiée la Cour dans R. c. Mahalingan, 2008 CSC 63 (CanLII), 2008 CSC 63, [2008] 3 R.C.S. 316, et ce, dans le contexte d’un procès devant jury qui soulève plus d’une question. La question précise en litige dans le pourvoi peut être formulée comme suit : le ministère public est‑il préclus de présenter des éléments de preuve visant à établir que l’East End Chapter des Hells Angels (« Hells Angels ») est une organisation criminelle, parce que cette question a déjà reçu une réponse défavorable au ministère public dans un procès antérieur tenu devant un jury? Pour les motifs qui suivent, je suis d’avis d’y répondre par la négative et de rejeter les pourvois.

Comments are closed.