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 past week:
- 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 . . .
- 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.
- R. v. MacKenzie 2013 SCC 50
 In this case, Benjamin MacKenzie takes issue with a police sniffer-dog search of his vehicle that occurred during the course of a highway traffic stop. He says the police lacked reasonable suspicion that he was involved in a drug-related offence when they had their dog sniff his vehicle. Asserting that the sniff was thus an unconstitutional search, he seeks to have the 31.5 lbs of marihuana found in the rear hatch of his car excluded, leaving the Crown with no case against him. The trial judge agreed with Mr. MacKenzie and excluded the evidence, but the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan reversed the decision. Because the police did have reasonable grounds to suspect that Mr. MacKenzie was involved in a drug-related offence, I am satisfied the sniff was lawful. I would accordingly dismiss the appeal.
The most-consulted French-language decision was Institut Philippe Pinel de Montréal c. A.G. 1994 CanLII 6105 (QC CA)
L’appelant propose que le juge de première instance a erré dans son appréciation de l’aptitude de l’intimé à refuser la médication suggérée, en ne tenant pas compte de l’ensemble des critères applicables, se limitant à se demander si l’intimé comprenait les conséquences de son refus. L’appelant plaide également que la dangerosité de l’intimé est un élément important à considérer tant dans l’évaluation de l’aptitude de celui-ci que relativement à la nécessité du traitement.