Today

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. Hole v Hole, 2016 ABCA 34

[62] Although the trial judge essentially treated this as a situation of repudiation or anticipatory breach, she did not consider whether the appellants elected to accept or reject the repudiation. There is no evidence on the record that the appellants clearly and unequivocally accepted the repudiation, and the appellants’ November 2000 request for the respondents to complete their obligations under the LOU supports the conclusion that the appellants considered the original LOU as subsisting in full force and effect. It was therefore an error for the trial judge to effectively treat the contract as repudiated, and conclude that the limitation period started running, in September 1994.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Galati v. Harper, 2016 FCA 39

[31] But, more importantly, the reason for which the claim for solicitor client costs ought to fail, and, in my view, does fail, is that it fails to meet the second criterion identified by the Court, namely that it would not have been possible to effectively pursue the litigation with private means. This refers to the litigation as it actually unfolded, not as it might have unfolded. As it actually unfolded, the Joint Application required some office time and a small number of attendances for a combined total of 71 hours of Mr. Galati’s and Mr. Slansky’s time. While this is not trivial, it is not an insuperable burden for two lawyers with busy practices. Furthermore, the burden on Mr. Galati and Mr. Slansky, to the extent that he was acting pro bono, has been relieved by the Federal Court’s exceptional award of costs of $5,000, even though they were unsuccessful, so that they might not be out of pocket.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. R. v Beauregard, 2016 ABCA 37

[22] Since exclusion of the evidence is not automatic, a separate analysis is required with respect to each Charter breach. Despite the paucity of submissions by either Crown or defence counsel as to how the s. 24(2) Grant factors applied specifically to the admission or exclusion of the respondent’s statement, a trial judge is nonetheless always obliged to undertake an independent analysis of s. 24(2) in respect of each factually disparate breach, once so found.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Syndicat canadien des communications, de l’énergie et du papier, section locale 30 c. Pâtes & Papier Irving, Ltée 2013 CSC 34

[1] La vie privée et la sécurité sont des intérêts liés au milieu de travail à la fois très importants et très délicats. Ils entrent aussi parfois en conflit, tout particulièrement lorsque le lieu de travail est dangereux.

[2] Dans un milieu de travail syndiqué, ces questions sont habituellement traitées dans le cadre de la négociation collective. Toutefois, si un employeur choisit de mettre en place des mesures de sécurité sans les négocier au préalable et si ces mesures emportent des sanctions disciplinaires pour les employés, il doit s’assurer qu’elles relèvent de la clause de la convention collective portant sur les droits de la direction.

(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)