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 January 1 – 8:

  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 . . .

  2. Association of Justices of the Peace v. Ontario 2013 ONSC 27

    [1] The Association of Justices of the Peace of Ontario (“AJPO”) seeks a declaration that section 2 of the Salaries and Benefits of Justices of the Peace Regulation, O. Reg. 247/94, requires Ontario to implement a salary indexing adjustment for the salary year 2008 to 2009 based on the Statistics Canada Industrial Aggregate Index for Ontario (“IAI”) which came into effect in March, 2009.

  3. Mould Clean v Fort Albany 2013 ONSC 66

    [1] On August 4, 2010 the Plaintiff obtained judgment against the Defendant for the sum of $1,605,778.00. The judgment was based on the consent of Andrew Solomon who was then the elected Chief of the Defendant. On December 1, 2010 the Plaintiff received payment of $405,778 on account of four of the five invoices included in the judgment.

    [2] The Plaintiff took no steps to enforce the balance of the judgment until August 2, 2012, when, without any prior notice to the Defendant of its intention to do so, it had a Notice of Garnishment issued to certain of the Defendant’s debtors. By that time, Mr. Solomon was no longer the Chief, much of council had been replaced, and a new executive director had been hired. The Defendant claims that this was its first notification of the existence of the Judgment and seeks an order staying its enforcement, setting it aside and granting leave to file a Statement of Defence.

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].

[2] À l’audience, le requérant souhaite amender ce second recours pour y ajouter ses revendications sur Neptune et Pluton, ainsi que sur l’espace entre chaque planète, à la grandeur de la galaxie[3].

Retweet information »

Comments are closed.