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. Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v. Chatr Wireless Inc. 2014 ONSC 1146

    [1] This court found that the respondents had failed to conduct adequate and proper tests prior to claiming that Chatr Wireless Inc. (“Chatr Wireless”) dropped fewer calls than Wind Mobile in Calgary and Edmonton and Public Mobile in Toronto and Montréal.

    [2] The “fewer dropped calls” claim appeared on Chatr Wireless’ website, in press releases, in media statements, in social media and in the fine print on Chatr handset packaging.

    [3] Failure to conduct an adequate and proper test prior to making a performance claim to the public is defined as reviewable conduct in section 74.01(1)(b) of the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34 (the “Act”). Section 74.01 is located in Part VII.1 which is entitled Deceptive Marketing Practices.

  2. R. v. Daley, Benons, and Griffith 2014 ONSC 1079

    [14] This was a warrantless search. For a search to be authorized as an incident to arrest, there must first be reasonable and probable grounds to arrest. The burden is on the Crown to establish those reasonable and probable grounds. There were none. There was not even a basis to detain the car or the individuals in it. The police actions breached the Charter rights of the three accused under both s. 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) and s. 9 (arbitrary detention).

    [15] Reasonable and probable grounds to arrest have a subjective and objective component. The police officer making (or authorizing) the arrest must believe he has reasonable and probable grounds to arrest. In addition, it must be established that a reasonable person standing in the same circumstances as the arresting officer, would believe there were reasonable and probable grounds to arrest.

  3. Sweda Farms v. Egg Farmers of Ontario 2014 ONSC 1200

    [13] This motion was argued before the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin et al.[10] It was argued on the basis of the “full appreciation” test stated by the Court of Appeal in Combined Air Mechanical v. Flesch.[11] On that test, I was satisfied that summary judgment ought to be granted dismissing Sweda’s claims against Burnbrae. Hryniak changes the law of summary judgment, but does not change the result of this motion.

    [14] Hryniak provides for a more proportional approach to motions for summary judgment. Precisely how this standard may develop will be seen as the law develops on a case by case basis. Sweda’s claim is large and complex. At its heart is an allegation that the two largest players in a tightly held industry conspired with each other, and with others, to drive Sweda, a smaller competitor, from the marketplace. The nominal claim for damages is large. The conduct alleged is very serious. This is not a case where the standard of proof on a motion for summary judgment would be relaxed in the name of proportionality. This is not to say that there should be no restraint on procedural complexity or cost: Sweda’s assertion that it would call nearly 100 witnesses at trial is ample basis for noting that even large-scale, complex and important litigation must be conducted with a sense of proportion and practicality. However, while the language of “full appreciation” may no longer govern the test for summary judgment, in order to achieve a “fair and just adjudication” of Sweda’s claims, I have proceeded on the basis that I should dismiss them only if I am satisfied that Sweda’s claims against Burnbrae cannot succeed at trial.

The most-consulted French-language decision was St-Cloud c. R. 2013 QCCS 5021

[1] La Cour est saisie d’une requête en révision de cautionnement de l’appelant, Monsieur Jeffrey St-Cloud.

[2] J’ai eu l’avantage de lire les décisions de Monsieur le juge Lavergne et Monsieur le juge Legault ainsi que d’entendre les représentations des procureurs. J’ai eu également l’opportunité de visionner l’enregistrement de deux caméras dans l’autobus qui ont reproduit de façon limpide plusieurs étapes de ce qui est survenu.

[3] Comme je l’ai dit en cours de route, ce que j’ai visionné n’est certainement pas joli et ne pourrait pas être sanctionné en aucun sens dans la société dans laquelle nous vivons. Mais je ne suis pas ici afin de décider de la question de la culpabilité de qui que ce soit ou de son degré de responsabilité dans cette affaire.

[4] Mon mandat est limité à déterminer s’il y a erreur révisable dans le refus de cautionnement dans le cas de Monsieur St-Cloud.

* 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.

Comments are closed.