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:
- 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.
- Maclean v. The Barking Frog 2013 HRTO 630
3. This is disputed by the respondent, who states that there was a flat cover charge of $5 for all customers that night. The respondent, however, does not dispute that its doorman may have offered the applicant and his friends a differential price in order to “jump the line”. In my view, this is a distinction without a difference. Whether offered as the regular cover charge or offered only as a special charge to “jump the line”, the dispute here focuses on the charging of a lower price for women in order to enter the bar…
- Matheson v. Lanark Mutual Insurance Company 2013 ONSC 2441
3. This challenging legal issue is rooted in a decision the Plaintiff, Arthur Matheson, made on October 11th, 2008, to travel from one part of his farm to another by driving his Honda all-terrain vehicle for approximately thirty seconds, or less, on a public road in the course of his farming operation, in order to check on his flock of sheep, who are pastured on his property.
The most-consulted French-language decision was Dunsmuir c. Nouveau-Brunswick 2008 CSC 9
1. Une fois de plus, la Cour est appelée à se pencher sur l’épineuse question de la démarche qu’il convient d’adopter pour le contrôle judiciaire des décisions des tribunaux administratifs. Au Canada, l’évolution récente du contrôle judiciaire a été marquée par une déférence variable, l’application de critères déroutants et la qualification nouvelle de vieux problèmes, sans qu’une solution n’offre de véritables repères aux parties, à leurs avocats, aux décideurs administratifs ou aux cours de justice saisies de demandes de contrôle judiciaire. Le temps est venu de réévaluer la question.