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 March 26 – April 2:

1. R. v. TELUS Communications Co. 2013 SCC 16
   

   [1] For many Canadians, text messaging has become an increasingly popular form of communication. Despite technological differences, text messaging bears several hallmarks of traditional voice communication: it is intended to be conversational, transmission is generally instantaneous, and there is an expectation of privacy in the communication. The issue in this appeal is the proper procedure under the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, for authorizing the prospective daily production of these messages from a computer database maintained by a telecommunications service provider.

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. Fernandes v. Penncorp 2013 ONSC 1637
   

   [1] This is a claim by an insured against an insurance company under a policy of disability insurance for benefits under the policy. The central issue is whether the insured has been injured to the extent that he is unable to work at any occupation for which he is reasonably suited by education, training or experience.

   [For a good summary of the case you might want to consult Kelly Santini LLP’s employment law blog for the suddenly unemployed.]

And this week, a bonus #4, which got enough page views to make it the top case in many weeks:

4. Asselin v. McDougall 2013 ONSC 1716
   

   Issues:
   1. Has the Plaintiff met the legal test for an interlocutory injunction in the context of a defamation action?
   a. Can it be said that the Defendants are liable for publication of statements made by others?
   2. Has the Plaintiff established irreparable harm?

The most-consulted French-language decision was Mailhot c. R. 2012 QCCA 964

[1] L’appelant se pourvoit contre le verdict d’un jury (Montréal, 30 juin 2008, le juge Jean-Guy Boilard) par lequel il a été déclaré coupable d’avoir commis un meurtre au deuxième degré; . . .