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. R. v. Gallegos-Garcia 2013 BCPC 315

    [1] On November 19, 2011, Constable Jason Funk and Constable Tracey Prentice were on patrol at approximately 6:25 am in the area of Ash Street and W. 6th Avenue in the City of Vancouver, when they observed an Infiniti G 35 pulled to the side of the road. The Infiniti was disabled due to a flat tire. Daniel Gallegos-Garcia (“the accused”) was in the process of fixing the tire.

    [2] The police officers pulled over to offer assistance. Within minutes the accused was arrested for possession of marijuana by Constable Funk. As a result of a search incident to arrest, Constable Funk located other illicit drugs along with a cell phone on the accused. The accused was then advised that he was under arrest for possession for the purpose of trafficking.

  3. Schwartz v. Ontario 2013 ONSC 7244

    [1] The Plaintiff brings this action against the Ontario Securities Commission (“OSC”), its Chair, several of its staff members, the Crown, and the Attorney General of Ontario, claiming damages for misfeasance in public office and a number of different causes of action. The Defendants move to dismiss the claim under Rule 21.01(3)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure on the grounds that it an abuse of process, or under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike the Statement of Claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action or constituting a frivolous or vexatious claim, with no leave to amend.

    [2] The primary argument put forward by the Defendants is that the Plaintiff’s claim is res judicata, the crucial issue having already been decided in prior regulatory and criminal proceedings. For the reasons that follow, that characterization of the claim is correct and the action must be dismissed.

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

[1] L’intimé, Guy Turcotte, était accusé de deux meurtres au premier degré pour avoir causé la mort de ses deux enfants.

[2] Le procès débute le 12 avril 2011 et, le 5 juillet, le jury prononce un verdict de non-responsabilité criminelle pour cause de troubles mentaux.

[3] Estimant que le juge de première instance (l’honorable Marc David, de la Cour supérieure, district de Terrebonne) a commis des erreurs de droit, principalement en ce qui a trait à la question de l’intoxication volontaire au méthanol en conjonction avec les troubles mentaux, l’appelante interjette appel.

Retweet information »

Start the discussion!

Leave a Reply

(Your email address will not be published or distributed)