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. Karmel v Calgary Jewish Academy, 2015 ABQB 731

[82] There is little point in setting out the rest of the correspondence. By the end of 2012, as I have emphasized, the die was cast. By the time the special meeting of the Board was called in February 2013, it was obvious that the PEC would recommend Mr. Karmel’s removal. Since Mr. Kettner was in control of the flow of information, no one on the Board could meaningfully question the recommendation. It was clear to all Board members that the relationship between Mr. Karmel and Mr. Kettner had become intolerable and was not sustainable. The Board had long since determined that it would stand behind Mr. Kettner.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. R. v. Powley, [2003] 2 SCR 207, 2003 SCC 43

4 After shooting the bull moose near Old Goulais Bay Road, Steve and Roddy Powley transported it to their residence in Sault Ste. Marie. Neither of them had a valid Outdoor Card, a valid hunting licence to hunt moose, or a validation tag issued by the MNR. In lieu of these documents, Steve Powley affixed a handwritten tag to the ear of the moose. The tag indicated the date, time, and location of the kill, as required by the hunting regulations. It stated that the animal was to provide meat for the winter. Steve Powley signed the tag, and wrote his Ontario Métis and Aboriginal Association membership number on it.

5 Later that day, two conservation officers arrived at the Powleys’ residence. The Powleys told the officers they had shot the moose. One week later, the Powleys were charged with unlawfully hunting moose and knowingly possessing game hunted in contravention of the Game and Fish Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. G-1. They both entered pleas of not guilty.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Ontario (Minister of Natural Resources) v. Beaudry, et al., 2006 ONCJ 59

[32] Before proceeding further, it is necessary, as the Supreme Court directed in Van der Peet, to characterize the right being claimed. In each of the cases that came before the court, the right claimed was to hunt (or fish, in the case of Mr. Hult) for food in the area around each defendant’s Métis home community. For the Beaudrys and the Ducharmes, that community is Longlac, for Mr. Roy, Red Rock, for Mr. Hein, Orient Bay, for Mr. Hult, Hurkett. Despite suggestions from the defence witness and OMAA president Michael McGuire, the case law is clear that Métis rights, like other aboriginal rights are site-specific. Therefore, each of the defendants must prove the existence of an historic Métis community in his or her area to which he or she belonged at the time of the alleged offences, and that he or she hunted or fished in that specific area, as well as the other issues set out in Powley at paragraph 29 of this judgment, infra

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Dunsmuir c. Nouveau-Brunswick, [2008] 1 RCS 190, 2008 CSC 9

1. Une fois de plus, la Cour est appelée à se pencher sur l’épineuse question de la démarche qu’il convient d’adopter pour le contrôle judiciaire des décisions des tribunaux administratifs. Au Canada, l’évolution récente du contrôle judiciaire a été marquée par une déférence variable, l’application de critères déroutants et la qualification nouvelle de vieux problèmes, sans qu’une solution n’offre de véritables repères aux parties, à leurs avocats, aux décideurs administratifs ou aux cours de justice saisies de demandes de contrôle judiciaire. Le temps est venu de réévaluer la question.

(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.