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. Modry v Alberta Health Services, 2015 ABCA 265

[109] Whether or not the respondent surgeon is, in fact, entitled to reinstatement on account of his status as a medical staff appointment with AHS under the Hospitals Act does not end the analysis under the balance of convenience arm of the tripartite test. The evidence of harm to the respondent surgeon (in the event of non-reinstatement) must be assessed against the countervailing harm to AHS and the public interest on reinstatement. It is clear to us that the countervailing harm to AHS and the public interest – specifically in respect of the current breakdown in trust and confidence between AHS and the respondent surgeon – outweighs the harm which the respondent surgeon subjectively claims he will suffer if his surgical privileges are not immediately reinstated. The balance of convenience must favour AHS to protect the public interest from the risk of the respondent surgeon’s premature return to the operating room. It would be untenable to reunite the respondent surgeon with AHS and his surgical colleagues at this juncture.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Pershad v Lachan, 2015 ONSC 5290

[84] Defence counsel argued that to the extent there are inconsistencies between the information in Ms. Lachan’s affidavit and the information in Dr. Pershad’s affidavit on matters of material fact, I should prefer Ms. Lachan’s evidence as being more credible and resolve the inconsistencies in her favour. As well, to the extent that I am unable to resolve issues of credibility between the parties, he argued I should hear oral evidence from Ms. Lachan and Dr. Pershad in a “mini-trial” in order to determine those issues. According to defence counsel, such a summary procedure would facilitate access to justice by his client, who may otherwise be unable to afford to defend the action through to trial given her limited means.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Airia Brands v Air Canada, 2015 ONSC 5332

[27] The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants conspired in Canada and throughout the world to fix prices of Airfreight Shipping Services, which is defined to mean airfreight cargo shipping services for shipments to or from Canada (excluding shipments to and from the United States).They emphasize that a global price fixing conspiracy is alleged.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Singh c. Montréal (Ville de), 2015 QCCS 3853

[97] Malgré la conclusion du Tribunal quant à la prescription du recours pour les cinq jours de détention, les remarques suivantes s’imposent. Dans un premier temps, M. Singh ayant comparu devant un juge dès le lendemain de son arrestation, sa détention subséquente et la décision de porter des accusations contre lui n’étaient plus du ressort des policiers. En effet, le policier a le devoir d’enquêter et de prévenir un crime. Il ne possède pas le pouvoir d’ordonner la détention à la suite de la comparution ni de déposer des accusations, décisions qui reviennent à d’autres intervenants du système judiciaire.
(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.