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 this last week:

  1. Berry et al v. Pulley et al, 2013 CanLII 54779 (ON SC)

    [1] This action was commenced in 1997, certified as a class proceeding in 2001, and tried in 2011. The Plaintiff class consisted of 171 Air Ontario pilots, five of whom were appointed as representative Plaintiffs. The Defendant class consisted of approximately 1,617 Air Canada pilots. The Plaintiffs alleged that members of the Defendant class and seven sub-classes committed the torts of conspiracy, intentional interference with economic interests, and negligent misrepresentation. They also alleged that the Defendant class owed a fiduciary duty to the members of the Plaintiff class and that that duty was breached.

    [2] Judgement was rendered in 2012. The Defendants were successful in resisting the Plaintiffs’ action. The Defendants now claim costs of $1.5 million dollars. The Plaintiffs resist this claim. The Third Party Defendant takes no position.

  2. DiFilippo v. DiFilippo 2013 ONSC 5460

    [1] In its essence this action is between the plaintiff Bruno DiFilippo (“Bruno”) and his father (the defendant, or “Giuseppe”) over ownership of land. The land has since been sold and the action is now one for damages. The defendant moves for security for costs against Bruno on the basis of two outstanding costs awards in his favor and on the basis that the action is frivolous and vexatious. Bruno resists the motion on the basis that he is impecunious and the action is not plainly devoid of merit. The defendant also moves for costs of the action against the co-plaintiff Cavana Corporation (“Cavana”), who was a joint venturer with Bruno to develop the land and who then discontinued its claim.

  3. R. v. Dunn 2013 ONCA 539

    4] On April 23, 2010, private investigators working on behalf of the Workplace Safety Insurance Board were watching the respondent. The evidence of one of the investigators was that after running a number of errands, the respondent met with another man. Following a short conversation, the respondent pulled out what looked like a pistol from the side pocket of his jacket, and appeared to point it at the man. He then returned the pistol to his jacket, went back to his car, and drove away. The investigators were concerned about what they had seen and informed the Ottawa Police Service.

    [5] The police went to the respondent’s trailer. The officer who ultimately found and seized the apparent pistol in question testified that he saw a black handgun resting on a chair in plain view in a shed beside the trailer. Further investigation determined that the handgun was a Crosman Pro77 airgun that fires .177 calibre spherical BBs propelled by means of compressed air from a canister. The airgun was fully functional and loaded with a partly used CO2 cartridge. There was no ammunition in the magazine. The person the respondent had pointed the gun at was a friend. The respondent had not pointed the gun to threaten or intimidate him.

The most-consulted French-language decision was Asphalte Desjardins inc. c. Commission des normes du travail 2013 QCCA 484

[5] Rupture forcée du lien d’emploi ou démission? Voilà la singulière question qui émerge des prétentions opposées des parties dans le dossier à l’étude. Formulée plus précisément, cette question se présente ainsi : un employeur peut-il se dégager de son obligation de payer le salaire, qui aurait été autrement payable pendant la durée du préavis de cessation d’emploi que lui donne son employé, en renonçant à l’exécution du travail pendant cette même période? La solution du pourvoi dépend de la réponse à y apporter.

Comments are closed.