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 February 19 – 26:

  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. R. v. Fearon 2013 ONCA 106

    [1] This court is asked to carve out a cell phone exception to the common law doctrine of search incident to arrest. . . .

  3. 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 . . .

The most-consulted French-language decision was Institut Philippe Pinel de Montréal c. A.G. 1994 CanLII 6105 (QC CA)

AUTORISE, pour une période de deux ans à compter de la date de cet arrêt, l’appelant à traiter l’intimé contre son gré, en lui administrant des médicaments antispychotiques et les autres médicaments jugés nécessaires pour atténuer ou combattre les effets secondaires des premiers . . . .

Retweet information »

Comments are closed.