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. R. v. Duncan 2013 ONCJ 160

    1. “You should get out of town”, the man said.
    2. And so began the journey that resulted in my path intersecting with Matthew Duncan’s path. And thence to these reasons, with a slight detour through territory that might have confused Lewis Carroll.
    3. I suppose that I should clarify that there was no menace in the man’s directive to me to get out of town. He was a friend and a colleague in two careers. His suggestion had been that he and I should change positions for a fortnight, giving him exposure to the realities of the northern reaches of Toronto, while I would enjoy a similar change of environment in the more sylvan environs of Niagara Region. I might even see a few plays in the evenings, he pointed out.

  2. Law Society of Upper Canada v. Joseph Peter Paul Groia 2013 ONLSAP 41

    [1] This is an appeal by Mr. Groia from the decision of the hearing panel dated June 28, 2012 finding that he engaged in professional misconduct for his uncivil and unprofessional courtroom submissions and statements during the trial of R. v. Felderhof. Mr. Groia also appeals from the decision of the panel dated April 18, 2013 imposing a two month suspension and ordering him to pay costs in the amount of $246,960.53 inclusive of fees, disbursements, GST and HST.

  3. IBM Canada Limited v. Waterman 2013 SCC 70

    [1] When IBM Canada Ltd. wrongfully dismissed its long-time employee, Richard Waterman, he had to start drawing his pension. The question before the Court is whether his receipt of those pension benefits reduces the damages otherwise payable by IBM for wrongful dismissal. The British Columbia courts decided not to deduct the pension benefits and IBM appeals.

The most-consulted French-language decision was Québec (Agence du Revenu) c. Services Environnementaux AES inc. 2013 CSC 65

[1] Ces appels soulèvent des problèmes liés à la détermination de la nature et de la portée d’ententes intervenues entre des contribuables relativement à la réorganisation d’entreprises, à des planifications fiscales et aux effets de ces mesures à l’égard du fisc. En bref, dans ces deux affaires, des actionnaires de sociétés commerciales effectuèrent diverses transactions pour procéder à la restructuration de ces sociétés et la cession d’intérêts dans celles-ci. Leurs ententes devaient être réalisées sans produire d’incidences fiscales. À la suite d’erreurs commises par les conseillers fiscaux des contribuables en cause, l’Agence du Revenu du Québec (« ARQ ») et l’Agence du Revenu du Canada (« ARC ») établirent des avis de cotisation réclamant des impôts imprévus par ces contribuables.

Comments are closed.