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. HS (Re), 2016 ABQB 121

[104] Her application is not made in a moment of weakness and her desire for physician-assisted death is long-standing. The evidence is that, since her diagnosis, she has explored various options around physician-assisted death. At various points in time she explored going to Switzerland, Basel and Québec. Her friend M.V. confirms this, stating that Ms. S. has been thinking about physician-assisted death for two years. The letters attached to Ms. S.’s Affidavit from the Calgary ALS and Motor Neuron Disease Clinic indicate that she had discussions with professionals there by at least July 2015. Those letters indicate that Ms. S. also discussed this subject with her spouse and her friends. She sought out the physician who will assist her. Ms. S. also expressly states that she waited until the release of Carter 2016 before making this application. She states that she “would like to pass away peacefully and [is] hoping to have physician-assisted death soon.”

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. R. v Kalleo, 2016 CanLII 7716 (NL PC)

[64] What are we afraid of that causes us to embrace the routine use of unreasonable restraint of in-custody accused in courtrooms?

[65] It seems to me that we degrade our appreciation for the value of fundamental rights and freedoms when we embrace the notion of zero tolerance for any possibility of escape from, or violence in, court. Zero tolerance, in this context, means that in order to eliminate any possibility of anyone being violent in court or attempting to escape, all prisoners must appear in court in restraints. Such a policy leads inevitably to the unreasonable restraint of all in-custody accused in courtrooms under the dubious mantra: Something bad only has to happen once.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. R. v. Madeley, 2016 ONCJ 108

[26] I am also persuaded that the effect of the victim surcharge discriminates against the mentally disabled. It exacerbates the historical economic disadvantage of many mentally disabled offenders and it leaves many of them under ongoing, if not perpetual, undischarged criminal sanction. In my view, through no fault of the offender, their lingering criminal debt can only feed the stereotypical link between mental disorder and criminality. Meanwhile, the enforcement mechanisms available to be used contribute to marginalization of mentally disabled persons, and exacerbate their exclusion from full participation in society. In short, when applied to poor, mentally disabled individuals, section 737 enhances the perception of prejudice and the experience of displacement.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Droit de la famille — 16244, 2016 QCCS 410

[75] Monsieur invoque que, contrairement aux non-croyants, il a en tant que croyant, l’obligation de se marier et donc de se soumettre aux conséquences civiles du mariage. Il n’aurait pas la possibilité, selon le droit québécois, de se marier à des fins religieuses seulement sans que son union n’emporte également des conséquences civiles. Le Code civil aurait pour effet d’éradiquer « le droit au libre choix des effets de sa conjugalité et à l’autonomie de la volonté des croyants »[24].

(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.