What’s Hot on CanLII This Month

Here are the four (bonus!) most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for the month of August.

1. D’Amico v. Hitti 2012 ONSC 4467 [See also Matt Mauer’s recent post on Slaw about this case.]

[1] My recent experience sitting as a single judge of this Court to hear motions has convinced me that there is a growing practice by unscrupulous residential tenants to manipulate the law improperly, and often dishonestly, to enable them to remain in their rented premises for long periods of time without having to pay rent to their landlords. It is practice that imposes an unfair hardship on landlords and reflects badly on the civil justice system in Ontario. It calls for the Government, the Landlord and Tenant Board and this Court to respond.

[2] I have chosen this case, which is one of many similar cases that came before me during a five-day period hearing motions, as an example of the problem that I describe. I could easily have chosen many others.

2. Canada v. Craig 2012 SCC 43

[2] The main issue in this case concerns the interpretation of s. 31 of the Income Tax Act. The question is under what circumstances the combination of farming and some other source of income constitutes a “chief source of income”, allowing a taxpayer to avoid the farm loss deduction limit in s. 31.

3. R. v. Bellusci 2012 SCC 44

[1] This appeal concerns a prisoner and a prison guard who both suffered injuries during the transportation of the prisoner by the prison guard between the court house in Montréal and a penitentiary in nearby Laval. . . .

[4] This appeal relates solely to the charge of intimidation. The trial judge found that Mr. Bellusci’s guilt on that count had been established by the Crown. He nonetheless declined to enter a conviction on the ground that Mr. Bellusci’s rights under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been violated 2008 QCCQ 21567 (CanLII), (2008 QCCQ 21567 (CanLII)).

4. Barton v. Rona Ontario Inc. 2012 ONSC 3809

[1] The plaintiff sues the defendant for wrongful dismissal and associated damages. The defence is that there was just cause for termination.

The most-consulted French-language decision was Cognyl-Fournier c. Montréal (Ville de) 2011 QCCS 2654

[7] Dimanche, le 4 juillet 2010, au milieu de l’après-midi, les policiers sont appelés à se rendre au parc Berthier, sur la rue Ontario Est à Montréal, pour un incident impliquant deux chiens dont l’un aurait mordu l’autre. . . .

[67] La demanderesse conteste l’ordre d’euthanasie qui, selon elle, est illégal et tout à fait mal fondé, et ce, d’autant plus qu’elle n’a pas eu la possibilité d’être entendue ou de contester la décision ou de fournir quelques informations pour compléter le dossier soumis à la personne qui a décidé. Elle demande aussi au Tribunal de déclarer que plusieurs dispositions du Règlement sur le contrôle des chiens et autres animaux sont contraires aux dispositions de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés[6] et de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne[7].

Comments are closed.