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. Wyllie v Larche, 2015 ONSC 4747

[79] Mr. Wyllie’s entitlement under the Canada Labour Code is to payment in lieu of notice and to severance pay. He was paid two weeks remuneration in lieu of notice. He was additionally entitled to receive severance pay. Severance pay is distinct from payment in lieu of notice. If an employer decides to provide working notice of dismissal, that does not eliminate the requirement that he provide severance pay. In Mattiassi v. Hathrow Management Partnership, a 26-year employee was given 54 weeks’ working notice, plus an additional lump-sum payment equivalent to about two months of regular pay, for a total of 62 weeks of working notice/pay in lieu. The employee then sued for her statutory severance pay. The employer argued the total amount of notice and pay in lieu of notice that he had provided exceeded the statutory notice and severance requirements and he was not required to pay any additional amount. The court rejected this argument. The court considered the fact notice can be provided by way of working notice or pay in lieu. However, it held that the Employment Standards Act requirement of severance pay is separate and distinct from the notice requirement and is, by default, to be paid as a lump sum. The employer was ordered to pay a further amount for severance.[39]
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Goodswimmer v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 ABCA 253

[14] The appellants say that as they did not specifically plead the “legal advice”, they did not put it into issue. In our view, this submission treats the issue too narrowly. A significant aspect of this case concerns the enforceability of the Agreement. The issue raised by the pleadings is whether the appellants’ consent to the Agreement, including the release, was informed. In other words, what information did the appellants have at the relevant time? The appellants had legal advice before they signed the Agreement. The respondents rely upon the Agreement in defence of the allegations in the amended statement of claim, and upon the clause in the Agreement that specifically states that the appellants had legal advice. This case is on all fours with decisions such as Conlon v Conlon, [1952] 2 All ER 462, [1952] 2 TLR 343 (CA) and Nowak v Sanyshyn (1979), 1979 CanLII 2101 (ON SC), 23 OR (2d) 797, 9 CPC 303 (HCJ) where plaintiffs unsuccessfully asserted privilege over the legal advice given to them prior to a settlement agreement and that settlement agreement was later challenged.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Guindon v. Canada, 2015 SCC 41

[1] Income tax law is notoriously complex and many taxpayers rely on tax advisors to help them comply. Given the important role played by tax advisors and other individuals involved in transactions affected by income tax considerations, Parliament enacted s. 163.2 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) (ITA), which imposes monetary penalties on every person who makes a false statement that could be used by another person for the purpose of the Act.

[2] Julie Guindon, the appellant, was assessed penalties under s. 163.2(4) totalling $546,747 in respect of false statements made by her in donation receipts issued by her on behalf of a charity which, it is alleged, she knew or would reasonably be expected to have known could be used by taxpayers to claim an unwarranted tax credit.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Québec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) c. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aéronautique Centre de formation), 2015 CSC 39

[1] La discrimination peut revêtir plusieurs formes. Alors que dans certains cas ses manifestations sont clairement identifiables, dans d’autres elles sont au contraire moins évidentes, par exemple lorsqu’elles résultent de préjugés et de stéréotypes inconscients ou encore de normes en apparence neutres, mais aux effets préjudiciables à l’égard de certaines personnes. La Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, RLRQ, c. C-12 (« Charte »), interdit les diverses manifestations de discrimination et offre un recours aux gens qui en sont victimes.

[2] La présente affaire permet à la Cour de se pencher pour la première fois sur une forme de discrimination qui trouverait sa source dans une décision d’une autorité étrangère. En l’espèce, une entreprise commerciale canadienne s’est fondée sur une décision des autorités américaines et a refusé de fournir à un individu une formation de pilote. La décision des autorités américaines découlerait, prétend-on, de profilage racial et l’entreprise aurait traité cet individu de façon discriminatoire en s’appuyant sur cette décision.
(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.