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 this last week:

  1. 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; Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens; Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International (CERI); Moorish Law; and other labels – there is no closed list. In the absence of a better moniker, I have collectively labelled them as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants [“OPCA litigants”], to functionally define them collectively for what they literally are. These persons employ a collection of techniques and arguments promoted and sold by ‘gurus’ (as hereafter defined) to disrupt court operations and to attempt to frustrate the legal rights of governments, corporations, and individuals.

  2. Radonjic v. Canada (National Revenue) 2013 FC 916

    2] The Applicant is a 37-year-old man living in Coquitlam, British Columbia. He is a lifelong game and sport player, and in mid-2003 took up playing poker.
    [3] The Applicant began playing online poker, and in early 2004 began making significant winnings. In the spring of 2004, when filing his 2003 tax return, the Applicant asked his accountant whether or not his online poker winnings were taxable or not.

  3. R. v. Kazemi 2013 ONCA 585

    [1] The facts of this case are simple. On April 26, 2010, the respondent was driving home from work alone. While she was stopped at a stop light, a police officer observed her to have a cell phone in her hand. She said that the cell phone had been on the seat but had dropped to the floor of the car when she braked. She picked it up when she got to the red light. That was when she was observed by the officer.

The most-consulted French-language decision was Njipgang c. Montréal (Ville de) 2012 QCCQ 1316

[3] Le 30 janvier 2009, de retour d’une entrevue en vue d’obtenir un emploi en tant qu’infirmière auxiliaire, la demanderesse circule à pied sur la rue Guy, à Montréal, afin de se rendre à la station de métro Guy-Concordia. Les rues sont fortement enneigées.
[4] Vers 10h15, rendue à l’angle de la rue Guy et du boulevard De Maisonneuve, elle glisse dans la neige et tombe. Elle ressent une douleur importante à sa jambe gauche. Des passants lui portent assistance et, devant son état, une ambulance est appelée sur les lieux.

Comments are closed.