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. Moore v. Getahun 2014 ONSC 237

    [1] On November 12, 2005, the plaintiff Blake Moore’s motorcycle careened out of control. The plaintiff flew over the handlebars. The plaintiff and the motorcycle hit a parked hummer vehicle causing it to move two feet. The plaintiff suffered a high impact fracture to his right wrist and other minor injuries. He was taken to the emergency department at Scarborough General Hospital – General Division.

    [2] The defendant, Dr. Tajedin Getahun, applied a full circumferential cast after a partially successful closed reduction.

    [3] On Sunday November 13, 2005, the plaintiff went to North York General Hospital emergency department, complaining of increased pain, swelling, and that the cast was too tight. After some initial delay, he was seen by an emergency room physician, who immediately suspected compartment syndrome. He removed the cast and referred the plaintiff to an orthopedic surgeon, who confirmed the diagnosis and performed emergency surgery for the compartment syndrome that had developed.

    [4] The plaintiff has lasting permanent injuries to his right arm as a result of the compartment syndrome and its aftermath. The parties have agreed upon damages. The issue before me in this trial is the defendant’s liability in applying a full circumferential cast to the plaintiff’s injury.
    . . . . .

    [520] The purpose of Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is to ensure the independence and integrity of the expert witness. The expert’s primary duty is to the court. In light of this change in the role of the expert witness under the new rule, I conclude that counsel’s practice of reviewing draft reports should stop. There should be full disclosure in writing of any changes to an expert’s final report as a result of counsel’s corrections, suggestions, or clarifications, to ensure transparency in the process and to ensure that the expert witness is neutral.

  2. Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick 2008 SCC 9

    [1] This appeal calls on the Court to consider, once again, the troubling question of the approach to be taken in judicial review of decisions of administrative tribunals. The recent history of judicial review in Canada has been marked by ebbs and flows of deference, confounding tests and new words for old problems, but no solutions that provide real guidance for litigants, counsel, administrative decision makers or judicial review judges. The time has arrived for a reassessment of the question.

  3. Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [1999] 2 SCR 817

    1 Regulations made pursuant to s. 114(2) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, empower the respondent Minister to facilitate the admission to Canada of a person where the Minister is satisfied, owing to humanitarian and compassionate considerations, that admission should be facilitated or an exemption from the regulations made under the Act should be granted. At the centre of this appeal is the approach to be taken by a court to judicial review of such decisions, both on procedural and substantive grounds. It also raises issues of reasonable apprehension of bias, the provision of written reasons as part of the duty of fairness, and the role of children’s interests in reviewing decisions made pursuant to s. 114(2).

The most-consulted French-language decision was Tremblay c. Daigle [1989] 2 RCS 530

La question soulevée par ce pourvoi est celle de la validité d’une injonction interlocutoire interdisant à Chantal Daigle de se faire avorter. L’injonction a été accordée à la requête de Jean‑Guy Tremblay, l’ancien ami de Mme Daigle. Vu l’urgence et l’importance de la cause, Mme Daigle étant enceinte à l’époque d’environ vingt et une semaines, la Cour a accepté d’entendre la demande d’autorisation de pourvoi, puis a entendu le pourvoi lui‑même, à bref délai, pendant ses vacances d’été. Il ressort de la preuve médicale qu’en règle générale, aucun centre hospitalier de la province de Québec n’effectuait d’avortement volontaire après la vingtième semaine de grossesse; les femmes voulant interrompre leur grossesse après la vingtième semaine devaient se rendre aux États‑Unis et avec chaque semaine qui passait les risques chirurgicaux s’accroissaient. Le pourvoi a donc été tranché à l’audience le 8 août 1989. La Cour a jugé à l’unanimité que le pourvoi devait être accueilli. Elle a indiqué que les motifs de la décision seraient déposés ultérieurement. Voici ces motifs.

* * As of January 2014 we measure the total amount of time spent on the pages rather than simply the number of hits; as well, a case once mentioned won’t appear again for three months.

Retweet information »

Start the discussion!

Leave a Reply

(Your email address will not be published or distributed)