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 April 16 – 23:

  1. R. v. Duncan 2013 ONCJ 160

    5. At heart, Mr. Duncan’s case was unremarkable. A minor alleged Highway Traffic Act offence led to a police-citizen interaction in the parking lot of Mr. Duncan’s apartment building in the wee hours of the morning. A request that Mr. Duncan produce his licence led to an alleged refusal, which led to an attempt to arrest him, which led to a struggle, which was captured on a very poor quality video taken on a mobile phone, at the end of which Mr. Duncan found himself being placed under arrest for allegedly assaulting a police officer. Nothing unusual in all that. The bread and butter of provincial court.

  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. R. v. Huang 2013 ONCA 240

    [1] After a trial by judge alone, the appellant was convicted of conspiracy to produce marijuana, production of marijuana and possession of marijuana for the purposes of trafficking. He was acquitted of a series of counts related to utilities theft. He was sentenced to four and one-half years’ imprisonment, after six months’ credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions.

    [2] The appellant appeals from his convictions. His principal ground of appeal is that the trial judge’s conduct during the trial, in particular, his intervention during the Crown’s cross-examination of the appellant, gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and undermined the appearance of fairness in this case.

The most-consulted French-language decision was Mofo Moko c. Ebay Canada Ltd. 2013 QCCS 856

[1] Les demandeurs, deux étudiants sans aucun doute éveillés, comme nous le verrons, poursuivent la défenderesse eBay Canada Inc. ( eBay ) pour ce qu’ils allèguent avoir été une perte de profit anticipé ou un manque d’opportunité d’un gain qu’ils espéraient réaliser en transigeant sur l’internet par l’entremise des services de la défenderesse.

[2] En effet, les demandeurs, ayant flairé la chance de faire un coup d’argent en vendant sur eBay des chaussures de sport Nike de production apparemment hyper- limitée et produites dans le cadre du Match des étoiles de la N.B.A. (National Basketball Association) pour 2012, ont réussi à s’en procurer une paire qu’ils ont mis en vente sur le réseau de la défenderesse le 21 février 2012, même s’ils n’avaient pas encore acheté les chaussures à cette date.

Comments are closed.