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. Law Society of Upper Canada v Hamalengwa, 2015 ONLSTH 57

[27] The Lawyer blamed the MAG and the LSUC for profiling him and picking on him because he is a black man. But the fact remains that the Lawyer billed about one-half of the $1.5 million in public funds spent on the Wills’ lawyers and amicuses. The Lawyer was the highest biller of all Mr. Wills’ lawyers compounded by the fact that the LAO failed to examine the Lawyer’s accounts. The panel concludes that it was logical for the Lawyer’s accounts to be assessed by the MAG and examined by the LSUC.

2. University of Calgary v JR, 2015 ABCA 118

[25] The stakes when a record subject to a claim of solicitor-client privilege is subject to compelled disclosure, even for the sole purpose of confirming the existence of the privilege, are indisputably high, and not only because of the concerns identified by the chambers judge about loss of the privilege generally and the possibility of further disclosure to the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General. Even were the Commissioner or her delegate to confirm the privilege, there is a risk inherent even in that purpose-limited disclosure to the Commissioner that information would become publically known, with resulting economic damage, embarrassment or other negative consequences.

3. Owners: Condominium Plan No 762 1302 v Stebbing, 2015 ABQB 219

[71] I disagree. The Board cannot engage in misconduct and then wallpaper over its errors with a new and perhaps technically correct step. Past misconduct taints subsequent Board action. Judicial determination of improper conduct requires review of the totality of circumstances. Here the Board has unfairly treated Ms. Stebbing, especially by disregarding the fact that she attempted to conform with the Bylaws of The Saskatchewan. It was unacceptable and unfair that the Board treated, and continues to treat, Ms. Stebbing differently from other residents of The Saskatchewan who also attempted to follow the Bylaws for their cats.

The most-consulted French-language decision was Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse c. 9185-2152 Québec inc. (Radio Lounge Brossard), 2015 QCCA 577

[12] Pourtant, tous conviennent que la bête est attentive et sécuritaire dans les foules, capable de guider son maître dans un lieu public, tels les établissements commerciaux, hôtels, restaurants, théâtres, cinémas et discothèques. Elle peut repérer, pour lui, les sorties, les escaliers et les toilettes. Mieux que quiconque, elle est en mesure de le conduire vers l’extérieur en cas d’évacuation urgente. Comme le signale le Tribunal des droits de la personne : « Vu l’entraînement qu’ils reçoivent et le processus de sélection dont ils font l’objet, les chiens-guides éduqués par MIRA se comportent, même dans les foules, de façon telle que leur présence ne génère, en soi, aucun risque grave ou excessif pour leur sécurité, celle de leur maître et celle d’autrui »[1].

* 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.