Today

What’s Hot on CanLII This Week

Here are the three most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for the week of September 16 – 23.

1. R. v. Hill 2012 ONSC 5050

[4] Mr. Hill seeks an Order declaring that s. 753(1.1) [dangerous sexual offender] of the Criminal Code is invalid and of no force or effect pursuant tos. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Counsel for Mr. Hill submits that s. 753(1.1) infringes s. 7s. 11(d) and s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

2. Canada (Attorney General) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society 2012 SCC 45

[3] In this case, the respondents the Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, whose objects include improving working conditions for female sex workers, and Ms. Kiselbach, have launched a broad constitutional challenge to the prostitution provisions of theCriminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46The British Columbia Court of Appeal found that they should be granted public interest standing to pursue this challenge; the Attorney General of Canada appeals. The appeal raises one main question: whether the three factors which courts are to consider in deciding the standing issue are to be treated as a rigid checklist or as considerations to be taken into account and weighed in exercising judicial discretion in a way that serves the underlying purposes of the law of standing. In my view, the latter approach is the right one. Applying it here, my view is that the Society and Ms. Kiselbach should be granted public interest standing. I would therefore dismiss the appeal.

3. R. v. Rundle (Nec Plus Ultra) 2012 ONSC 5185

[1] The Attorney General of Canada (“AG”) seeks an injunction preventing the respondent Madeleine Rundle, carrying on business as Nec Plus Ultra (“Rundle”), from continuing to use copies of the Public Service Commission’s (“PSC”) Second Language (French) Evaluation Tests (“SLE”) to prepare her students for the SLE test.

The most-consulted French-language decision was R. c. Jobin 2002 CanLII 32209.

[7] L’appelant se pourvoit contre un verdict de culpabilité à l’infraction d’avoir conduit un véhicule à moteur alors que sa capacité était affaiblie par l’effet de l’alcool ou d’une drogue (a. 253 a) C.cr.), prononcé par la Cour du Québec (l’hon. Michel Auger, le 30 mai 2000) et confirmé par la Cour supérieure (l’hon. François Tremblay, le 26 septembre 2000).

Retweet information »

Comments are closed.