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. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board 2013 HRTO 440

    [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] This decision addresses the remedy arising from that discrimination and a jurisdictional challenge. After opening statement, the respondent brought a motion asking that I recuse myself on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias. I declined to do so. My reasons for doing so are found at the end of this decision.

  2. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401 2013 SCC 62

    [1] This appeal requires the Court to determine whether Alberta’s Personal Information Protection Act unjustifiably limits a union’s right to freedom of expression in the context of a lawful strike. At issue is whether the Act achieves a constitutionally acceptable balance between the interests of individuals in controlling the collection, use and disclosure of their personal information and a union’s freedom of expression.

  3. 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?

The most-consulted French-language decision was R. c. Turcotte 2013 QCCA 1916

[5] Dès le début du procès, l’intimé admettait avoir causé la mort des deux victimes au moyen d’un acte illégal et l’acquittement n’était pas une issue possible, ce qu’a d’ailleurs indiqué le juge au jury. Le seul enjeu était donc son état d’esprit au moment des événements. La preuve démontrait qu’il connaissait les effets de l’intoxication au méthanol, de sorte que son intoxication n’était pas qualifiée d’involontaire, au sens juridique du terme, même si, dans son exposé en appel, il la décrit comme étant « moralement involontaire ».

Comments are closed.