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 February 11 – 19:

  1. R. v. McKay 2013 ABPC 13

    [1] The accused is charged under s. 253(1)(a) and 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. The accused has a filed a Notice pursuant to the Charter s. 24(2), to exclude evidence obtained arising from alleged breaches of the accused’ rights pursuant to s. 7, 8 and 10 of the Charter. In particular, the accused says that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to exercise his right to counsel and that the accused was not provided with a full range of resources and access to sources of information which reasonably were or ought have been made available to him to contact a lawyer, including internet access. . . .

  2. Ross River Dena Council v. Government of Yukon 2012 YKCA 14

    [1] This appeal concerns the duty of the Government of Yukon to consult with the plaintiff when it allows mineral claims to be recorded on land over which the plaintiff has asserted claims of Aboriginal title and Aboriginal rights.

  3. 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.

The most-consulted French-language decision was Sun Indalex Finance, LLC c. Syndicat des Métallos 2013 CSC 6

[1] L’insolvabilité peut entraîner des conséquences catastrophiques. Les créanciers ordinaires sont souvent laissés impayés. En situation d’insolvabilité, les prestations déterminées promises aux employés pendant leur emploi sont mises en péril. Les présents pourvois illustrent ce qui peut se produire lorsque ce péril se matérialise. Bien que l’employeur en l’espèce ait manqué à son obligation fiduciaire envers les participants aux régimes de retraite, le préjudice qu’ils subissent ne résulte pas de son manquement, mais de son insolvabilité. Pour les motifs qui suivent, je suis d’avis d’accueillir les appels de Sun Indalex Finance, LLC, George L. Miller, syndic de faillite d’Indalex É.‑U., et FTI Consulting Canada ULC.

Retweet information »

Comments are closed.