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. Mihaly v. The Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta 2014 AHRC 1
   

   [1] Mr. Ladislav Mihaly filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission (the Commission) on August 5, 2008, alleging that he was discriminated against by the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGGA)[1] when he was denied registration as a Professional Engineer. This complaint is about whether the requirements imposed upon Mr. Mihaly by APEGGA for registration as a Professional Engineer are contrary to the Alberta Human Rights Act (the Act).[2]

2. Farrell v. Kavanagh 2014 ONSC 905
   

   [2] Given the directions made by the Supreme Court of Canada on the issue of proportionality in summary judgment motions in its recent decision in Hryniak v. Maudlin, 2014 SCC 7 (CanLII), 2014 SCC 7, in my view when a request is made in an action on the Toronto Region Commercial List for a summary judgment motion date, one judge should case manage the proceeding.

   [3] Accordingly, I seize myself of this action and I shall act as the case management judge.

3. Fairview Donut Inc. v. The TDL Group Corp. 2014 ONSC 776
   

   [7] The defendants claim partial indemnity costs of $2,415,500, inclusive of applicable taxes and disbursements. The total fees and disbursement billed by the defendants’ solicitors were $2,983,179. The plaintiffs acknowledge that “the certification and summary judgment motions for which costs are sought were factually and legally complex, important to the parties and … in the circumstances, they could reasonably expect to be required to pay a meaningful costs award to the defendants.” They submit that $475,000, all-inclusive, would be fair and reasonable, having regard to all relevant principles, including the potential adverse impact of a substantial costs award on access to justice

The most-consulted French-language decision was Pétrolia inc. c. Gaspé (Ville de) 2014 QCCS 360

[1] Une ville peut-elle réglementer sur son territoire des activités de forage autorisées en vertu de la Loi sur les mines?

[2] La demanderesse, Pétrolia inc. (Pétrolia), soutient que la Ville de Gaspé (la Ville) n’a pas cette compétence ou, à tout le moins, que le règlement qu’elle a adopté en décembre 2012 et qui aurait cette conséquence, est inopérant à son égard, inopposable et inapplicable à ses activités.

* 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.