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. Elmardy v Toronto Police Services Board, 2015 ONSC 2952

[96] The police are entitled to speak to members of the public with whom they interact. Similarly, members of the public are entitled to decline to speak to the police. Had Constable Pak approached me, I might have given him the information he wanted. I might have said, “Constable, I prefer to not answer your question and I would like to be on my way now please.” But, Mr. Elmardy is not me. He brings his life’s experiences with him. For whatever reason, he was hostile to the police and clearly wanted nothing to do with them. When one swears at a policeman, it is probably logical to expect a punch in the face. Many would say that it is deserved. But it is not. The police deal with all manner of members of the public. Each brings his or her own life and troubles, experiences and joys with him or her to each encounter. Not all are polite. No law says they have to be.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Robert Findlay Law Office Professional Corporation v Werner, 2015 ONSC 2955

[1] The individuals in this lawsuit are lawyers. Stephanie Werner was an employee of the plaintiff firm, D. Robert Findlay Law Office Professional Corporation (herein referred to as the “Findlay law firm” or “Mr. Findlay”). In 2013, she resigned from her position and thereafter commenced employment with her co-defendants, Robert J. Hooper, Robert J. Hooper Professional Corporation and Hooper Law Offices (herein referred to as the “Hooper law firm” or “Mr. Hooper”). A number of clients of the Findlay law firm then directed the transfer of their files to the Hooper law firm.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Carbone v Whidden, 2015 ABCA 161

[14] However, this maze of affidavits does prove two things. The first is that the appellant has a very extended idea of relevance, with great tolerance for tangents. The second is that any permission for her to “Add affidavits already before this Court” is very unlikely to produce something brief.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Pharmaciens (Ordre professionnel des) c Hamoui, 2013 CanLII 85595 (QC CDOPQ)

[21] L’enquête de la plaignante lui apprend que l’intimé permet à des clients appelés « clients à panier » de se procurer des produits non pharmaceutiques disponibles sur le plancher de sa pharmacie en échange d’ordonnances valables qu’il enregistre dans ses ventes et pour lesquelles il réclame le remboursement à l’assurance sans toutefois délivrer des médicaments aux patients concernés;
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

* 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.