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 15 to 22:

  1. Canada (United States of America) v. Equinix Inc. 2013 ONSC 193

    [1] The Attorney General of Canada applies for an order pursuant to s. 15 of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (the Act) sending mirror-imaged copies of thirty-two computer servers to authorities in the United States of America. . . .

  2. McCain v. McCain 2012 ONSC 7344

    1] The Applicant, Christine McCain (“the Wife”) brings a Motion seeking the following interim/temporary relief from the Court in her Application against the Respondent, Michael McCain (“the Husband”):

    . . . .
    (b) An Order that he pay temporary spousal support to her in the sum of $200,000 per month retroactive to July 1, 2011;

  3. R. v. Ryan 2013 SCC 3

    [1] This appeal raises a novel question: may a wife, whose life is threatened by her abusive husband, rely on the defence of duress when she tries to have him murdered? The Nova Scotia courts concluded that she may and acquitted the respondent, Nicole Ryan, of counselling the commission of her husband’s murder. The Crown appeals.

The most-consulted French-language decision was Sobeys Québec inc. c. Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail 2012 QCCA 1329

[4] Aux termes de l’article 51(1) de la Loi sur la santé et la sécurité du travail[1], (L.s.s.t.) un employeur peut-il être tenu, dans des circonstances particulières, d’aménager son établissement de façon à assurer la protection non seulement de ses employés mais également de ceux d’un tiers employeur qui exécutent des travaux dans son établissement?

Retweet information »

Comments

  1. Given recent discussion here, it may be of interest that the ‘Canada v Equinix’ case above is about an attempt by the US government to get delivery to it of 32 servers belonging to Megaupload, seized following the world-wide raid on that company organized by the US early last year. The court here held that an analysis of the servers’ content must be brought before the court before such a broad order could be made.