Today

Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII

Each Wednesday we tell you which three English-language cases and which French-language case have been the most viewed on CanLII and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about.

For the week of December 11 to 18:

  1. Waterloo Catholic District School Board v CUPE, Local 2512 2012 CanLII 51844 (ON LA)

    The Union filed this grievance because of the failure of the Employer to post the position of Receptionist in the Education Centre. It says that the Employer violated Article 15 of the collective agreement along with other provisions. There is no dispute that the collective agreement was not followed but the Employer claims that it was justified in so doing because of the provisions of the Ontario Human rights Act (hereinafter OHRA) which obligate it, and the Union , to accommodate disabled employees.

  2. 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; . . .

  3. R. v. Khawaja 2012 SCC 69

    [1] The appellant, Mohammad Momin Khawaja, was convicted of five offences under Part II.1 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, the Terrorism section. He faces a life sentence and a concurrent sentence of 24 years of imprisonment, with a 10-year period of parole ineligibility. He appeals on a variety of grounds, which may be summarized as follows: (1) that the provisions in Part II.1 of the Criminal Code under which he was convicted violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are unconstitutional; (2) that the provisions were misapplied or misinterpreted, resulting in an unfair trial or an unreasonable verdict; and (3) that the Ontario Court of Appeal erred in imposing his sentence.

The most-consulted French-language decision was Langevin 2012 QCCS 613

[1] Sylvio Langevin réclame la propriété de la planète Terre[1]. Dans un autre dossier entrepris le même jour, il réclame celle des planètes Mercure, Vénus, Jupiter, Saturne et Uranus, ainsi que des quatre grosses lunes de Jupiter[2].

Retweet information »

Comments are closed.