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. R v Porter, 2015 ABCA 279

[16] The principle against self-incrimination is a principle of fundamental justice under s 7 of the Charter. An accused is not required to respond to an allegation of wrongdoing made by the state until the state has succeeded in making out a prima facie case against him or her: White, para 40. The principle was described as follows by Lamer CJ in R v Jones, 1994 CanLII 85 (SCC), [1994] 2 SCR 229 at p 249:

Any state action that coerces an individual to furnish evidence against him or herself in a proceeding in which the individual and the state are adversaries violates the principle against self-incrimination. Coercion, it should be noted, means the denial of free and informed consent.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Moore v. Getahun, 2015 ONCA 55

[63] Consultation and collaboration between counsel and expert witnesses is essential to ensure that the expert witness understands the duties reflected by rule 4.1.01 and contained in the Form 53 acknowledgment of expert’s duty. Reviewing a draft report enables counsel to ensure that the report (i) complies with the Rules of Civil Procedure and the rules of evidence, (ii) addresses and is restricted to the relevant issues and (iii) is written in a manner and style that is accessible and comprehensible. Counsel need to ensure that the expert witness understands matters such as the difference between the legal burden of proof and scientific certainty, the need to clarify the facts and assumptions underlying the expert’s opinion, the need to confine the report to matters within the expert witness’s area of expertise and the need to avoid usurping the court’s function as the ultimate arbiter of the issues.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32, [2009] 2 SCR 353

[1] Mr. Grant appeals his convictions on a series of firearms offences, relating to a gun seized by police during an encounter on a Toronto sidewalk. The gun was entered as evidence against Mr. Grant and formed the basis of his convictions. The question on this appeal is whether that evidence was obtained in breach of Mr. Grant’s Charter rights, and if so, whether the evidence should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Renvoi: Droits linguistiques au Manitoba, [1985] 1 RCS 721, 1985 CanLII 33 (CSC)

148. i) L’article 133 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 et l’art. 23 de la Loi de 1870 sur le Manitoba sont impératifs;

149. ii) Toutes les lois de la législature du Manitoba qui n’ont pas été imprimées et publiées en anglais et en français sont invalides et inopérantes et l’ont toujours été;

150. iii) Les lois de la législature du Manitoba qui seraient actuellement en vigueur, n’était‑ce du vice dont elles sont entachées sur le plan constitutionnel (c.‑à‑d. les lois actuelles), sont réputées temporairement valides et opérantes à compter de la date du présent jugement jusqu’à l’expiration du délai minimum requis pour les traduire, les adopter de nouveau, les imprimer et les publier;
(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.