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. De Cruz Lee v. Lee, 2015 ONSC 2012

[29] Self-represented litigants whose aim it is to protract court proceedings to force the other side to expend significant resources on legal costs due to scurrilous allegations that are without any evidentiary foundation and are entirely irrelevant to the issue before the Court will meet the hammer of a cost’s award. In our resource strapped court system, there must be deterrence against such conduct that not only penalises the opposing party but also penalises those litigants who have genuine claims to bring before a court but must have their justice delayed due to Court time being spent on this type of litigation,

2. Morland-Jones v. Taerk, 2014 ONSC 3061

[23] In my view, the parties do not need a judge; what they need is a rather stern kindergarten teacher. I say this with the greatest of respect, as both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants are educated professionals who are successful in their work lives and are otherwise productive members of the community. Despite their many advantages in life, however, they are acting like children. And now that the matter has taken up an entire day in what is already a crowded motions court, they are doing so at the taxpayer’s expense.

3. Ledcor Construction Limited v Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Company, 2015 ABCA 121

[56] The key is to find the dividing line between physical damage that is excluded as “making good faulty workmanship”, and physical damage that is “resulting damage” which is covered by the policy. As demonstrated in the previous discussion, the wording of the policy and the weight of the case law supports the test for physical or systemic connectedness. The exclusion (considered together with the exception) excludes from coverage the cost of redoing the work. But it also excludes damage connected to that work, such as any damage caused to the very object or part of the work on which the faulty workmanship is being applied. In this case, the cost of redoing the exterior cleaning of the EPCOR Tower is admittedly excluded. Also excluded is the damage to the windows being worked on at the time, which damage was directly caused by the cleaning activities that constituted the faulty workmanship. This damage was not only foreseeable, but it was highly likely (even inevitable) that this type of damage would result if the work was done in a faulty way. That type of damage is presumptively not within the scope of the insurance policy; the policy is not a construction warranty agreement.

The most-consulted French-language decision was Dunsmuir c. Nouveau-Brunswick, [2008] 1 RCS 190, 2008 CSC 9

1. Une fois de plus, la Cour est appelée à se pencher sur l’épineuse question de la démarche qu’il convient d’adopter pour le contrôle judiciaire des décisions des tribunaux administratifs. Au Canada, l’évolution récente du contrôle judiciaire a été marquée par une déférence variable, l’application de critères déroutants et la qualification nouvelle de vieux problèmes, sans qu’une solution n’offre de véritables repères aux parties, à leurs avocats, aux décideurs administratifs ou aux cours de justice saisies de demandes de contrôle judiciaire. Le temps est venu de réévaluer la question.

* 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.