What’s Hot on CanLII This Week

Here are the three most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for the week of November 14 – 21.

1. Meads v. Meads 2012 ABQB 571

[1] This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into the following descriptions: Detaxers; Freemen or Freemen-on-the-Land; Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens; Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International (CERI); Moorish Law; and other labels . . .

2. R. v. Mabior 2012 SCC 47

[1] This case raises the issue of whether an HIV-positive person who engages in sexual relations without disclosing his condition commits aggravated sexual assault.

3. R. v. D.C. 2012 SCC 48

[1] This appeal, like the companion appeal, R. v. Mabior, 2012 SCC 47 (CanLII), 2012 SCC 47, raises the question of when an HIV-positive person’s failure to disclose the condition to a sexual partner amounts to fraud vitiating consent under s. 265(3)(c) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, with the result that the sexual act constitutes the offence of aggravated sexual assault. In Mabior, I hold that the realistic possibility of transmission of HIV should be disclosed and that the failure to do so amounts to fraud.

3a. Bob Brown Pontiac Buick GMC Limited v. General Motors of Canada Limited 2012 ONSC 5454 [very close in number of views to #3]

[2] GMC moves for orders concerning the legal representation of the plaintiffs and the use of a certain document by the plaintiffs. Simply put, GMC seeks to remove Jonathan Lisus, a partner at Lax O’Sullivan Scott Lisus, and the Lax Firm, as counsel of record in this action for three plaintiffs in this Action and split off the claims of those three plaintiffs from this Action and, also, seeks to prevent the plaintiffs from using a particular document disclosed in other dealer litigation, the so-called “Disputed Document”.

The most-consulted French-language decision was Bombardier Produits récréatifs inc. (BRP) c. Christian Moto Sport inc. (CMS) 2012 QCCA 1670

[8] Christian Moto Sport inc., le concessionnaire en question, soutient que Bombardier a agi de manière abusive en ne renouvelant pas à échéance son contrat de concession, d’où le recours en dommages-intérêts entrepris contre cette dernière et le jugement de première instance qui lui a donné gain de cause après avoir retenu que la théorie de l’abus de droit contractuel trouvait application.

Comments are closed.