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. Mikolic v Tanguay, 2015 ONSC 71

[28] Although the trial judge was satisfied that the amounts the Plaintiff had received for past income replacement benefits had exceeded the tort award for past loss of income, he wrote that he could not determine from the evidence what amounts the Plaintiff had actually received under the settlement on account of future income replacement benefits.”

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Rosenberg v 206 Bloor Street West Limited, 2016 ONSC 6

[146] In retrospect, the defendants may rue the day when they unleashed the plaintiff on their suppliers rather than spending the time to work on her designs with her and collect standard samples for each design element and samples for those items where upgrades would be offered to her. They may equally regret having failed to make the plaintiff’s choices for her despite repeatedly threatening to do so. They may regret failing to amend their form of contract document to reflect better the practical difficulties associated with the vendor’s decision to allow purchasers to make selections “off-menu.” However, regrets are not synonymous with a default. At the time that the agreement was declared to be at an end, I cannot find that the plaintiff was in breach or unreasonably failing to make final choices. As noted in the survey of items above, in some cases the vendor was in the wrong. In many there was good reason for discussions as both parties were neither fully right nor fully wrong. It was the vendor’s choice to engage in an iterative process with the plaintiff. I see no provision of the agreement that gave it the right to unilaterally declare the process over in the absence of full performance on its own side.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9

[1] This appeal calls on the Court to consider, once again, the troubling question of the approach to be taken in judicial review of decisions of administrative tribunals. The recent history of judicial review in Canada has been marked by ebbs and flows of deference, confounding tests and new words for old problems, but no solutions that provide real guidance for litigants, counsel, administrative decision makers or judicial review judges. The time has arrived for a reassessment of the question.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Pharmaciens (Ordre professionnel des) c Kanou, 2015 CanLII 84927 (QC CDOPQ)

[25] Lorsque des sanctions sont suggérées conjointement par les parties, le Conseil n’a pas à s’interroger sur la sévérité ou la clémence des suggestions communes sur sanction et doit y donner suite, sauf s’il les considère déraisonnables, contraires à l’intérêt public, inadéquates ou de nature à déconsidérer l’administration de la justice[2].

[26] La sanction vise, non pas à punir le professionnel fautif, mais à assurer en premier la protection du public. Puis, la sanction doit permettre d’atteindre les objectifs suivants : dissuader la récidive du professionnel et être un exemple pour les autres membres de la profession[3].

(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.

Start the discussion!

Leave a Reply

(Your email address will not be published or distributed)