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. BlackBerry Limited v. Marineau-Mes 2014 ONSC 1790

    [1] The Applicant, Blackberry Limited (“BlackBerry”), brings this application for the following declarations:

    (a) a declaration that the employment contract entered into between BlackBerry and the respondent Sebastien Marineau-Mes (“Marineau-Mes”), dated effective September 27, 2013 and signed on October 16, 2013 (the “Contract”), is binding on the parties thereto, and that Marineau-Mes is obligated, as set out in the Contract, to provide six months’ prior written notice of his resignation from employment with BlackBerry; and

    (b) a declaration that the notice period under the Contract expires on June 23, 2014.

    [2] Marineau-Mes seeks a declaration that the Contract is not a valid and enforceable contract, or in the alternative, an order converting the application to an action pursuant to rule 38.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. Marineau-Mes submits that there are material facts in dispute, particularly with respect to the issue of whether Marineau-Mes assumed the role of Executive Vice-President, Platform Development (“EVP”). It is my view, however, that proceeding by way of application is appropriate when one considers the guidance recently provided by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 (CanLII), 2014 SCC 7. The filed materials, including the transcripts, allow for a fair and just process and allow me to find the facts necessary to resolve the dispute and apply the relevant legal principles to the facts as found.

  2. Kehoe’s Pharmacy Ltd. v. Bennett Best Burn LLP 2014 ONSC 1881

    [1] By the time this action reached the trial stage, the only remaining Defendant was the law firm Bennett Best Burn LLP, the Plaintiff having settled with the other original defendants, Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. and G.G. Pharmacy Inc. (“Shoppers”). Accordingly, the matter proceeded to trial only on the issue of the Defendant solicitors’ negligence.

    I. The sale transaction

    [2] The Plaintiffs were a pharmacy and retail store located in Perth, Ontario. In October 2006, Dianne Kehoe, the principal of the Plaintiffs, sold the business to Shoppers for approximately $4 million in assets and $1.5 million in inventory. The Defendant, Bennett Best Burn LLP, is the law firm that represented the Plaintiffs in that sale transaction.

  3. Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6 2014 SCC 21

    1] The Supreme Court Act provides that three of the nine judges of the Supreme Court of Canada must be appointed “from among the judges of the Court of Appeal or of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec or from among the advocates of that Province”: R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, s. 6. This reference seeks our opinion on two aspects of the eligibility requirements for appointment to these three Quebec seats.

    [2] The first is whether a person who was at any time an advocate of at least 10 years standing at the Barreau du Québec qualifies for appointment under s. 6 as being “from among the advocates of that Province”. If the answer to the first question is no, the second question arises. It is whether Parliament can enact legislation to make such a person eligible for appointment to one of the three Quebec seats on the Court. The answer to these questions — which on their face raise issues of statutory interpretation — engage more fundamental issues about the composition of the Court and its place in Canada’s legal and constitutional order.

    [3] These questions arise in the context of the appointment under s. 6 of the Honourable Marc Nadon, a supernumerary judge of the Federal Court of Appeal and formerly, but not at the time of this appointment, a member of the Quebec bar of more than 10 years standing. Justice Nadon was not a judge of the Court of Appeal or the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec and therefore was not eligible for appointment on that basis. The narrow question is thus whether he was eligible for appointment because he had previously been a member of the Quebec bar.

The most-consulted French-language decision was Fillion c. R. 2006 QCCA 244

[2] Le pourvoi soulève deux questions de droit: 1) L’appelant peut-il être qualifié de «fonctionnaire» au sens de l’article 122 C.cr. ? 2) La Loi sur l’Assemblée Nationale[1] crée-t-elle un régime d’encadrement exclusif des activités du député, par l’intermédiaire du Bureau de l’Assemblée Nationale, de sorte que les tribunaux ne pourraient «s’ingérer» dans ce processus sans porter atteinte aux privilèges et immunités des membres de l’Assemblée Nationale ?

[3] L’appelant propose de répondre par la négative à la première question et par l’affirmative à la seconde; son acquittement en résulterait sur tous les chefs d’accusation. Ces moyens ne peuvent être retenus.

* 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.