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. R. v. Vu 2013 SCC 60

    [1] In this case, the digital and Internet age meets the law of search and seizure. The encounter raises a novel issue: does the traditional legal framework require some updating in order to protect the unique privacy interests that are at stake in computer searches? The traditional legal framework holds that once police obtain a warrant to search a place for certain things, they can look for those things anywhere in the place where they might reasonably be; the police do not require specific, prior authorization to search in receptacles such as cupboards and filing cabinets. The question before us is whether this framework is appropriate for computer searches; in short, should our law of search and seizure treat a computer as if it were a filing cabinet or a cupboard?

  2. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board 2013 HRTO 440

    [1] This is an Application made under s. 53(5) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), dated May 18, 2009. The underlying complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) on November 24, 2004.

    [2] In a prior decision, 2012 HRTO 350 (CanLII), 2012 HRTO 350 (“decision on liability”), I found that the respondent discriminated against the applicant because of disability contrary to ss. 5 and 9 of the Code, by failing to accommodate the applicant’s disability-related needs from April 2003 and then by terminating her employment on July 9, 2004.

  3. R. v. Kolola 2010 NUCJ 4

    [1] Mr. Kolola has been convicted by a jury of his peers of the offence of first degree murder.

    [2] He must now be sentenced for this offence.

    [3] A young life, a life full of promise, has been taken. A family has been devastated. Co-workers have been shaken. An entire community has been traumatized.

The most-consulted French-language decision was Encres d’imprimerie Schmidt Ltée c. Agence de ventes Bill Sayer Inc. 2004 CanLII 26433 (QCCA)

[5] L’appelante ne conteste que la durée du délai-congé fixé par le premier juge et le montant des indemnités relatives au congédiement de son employé: la première, de 283 600 $, tient lieu d’un préavis à la société de l’intimé, la seconde, pour dommages moraux, s’élève à 30 000 $ et est payable à l’intimé personnellement[1].

[6] Le 28 février 2000, lorsque Encres d’Imprimerie Schmidt ltée (Schmidt) met fin à ses relations avec Bill Sayer (Sayer), celui-ci est âgé de 65 ans et il compte près de 36 ans de service auprès de cette filiale d’une société allemande qui, depuis 1957, œuvre dans la vente et la distribution d’encres liquides.

Comments are closed.