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. Jackson v Mayerle, 2016 ONSC 1556

8. These are nice, average people. Of modest means (now considerably more modest). They drive old cars and probably pinch pennies shopping at Costco.

9. And yet somehow, between them, they spent more than half a million dollars on lawyers “to have a judge tell us something we could arrange ourselves.”

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. R. v Clarke, 2016 ONSC 1510

[10] Finally, the officer’s testimony in court was frequently evasive or misleading. Crown counsel admitted the officer “did a horrible job on the stand.” At certain points his answers literally changed from one minute to another, on important issues. This was not a case of Smith being inexperienced, as he has been a border officer since 1998. Revealingly, the “mistakes” he was caught in nearly always favoured his decision to arrest. This deception is a factor which the Supreme Court considered relevant to the first inquiry under 24(2) analysis, given the “need for a court to dissociate itself from such behaviour” (para. 26).

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Therrien (Re), [2001] 2 SCR 3, 2001 SCC 35

1 This appeal raises very important and for the most part novel questions. They are essentially of three types. First, it addresses questions concerning the jurisdiction of this Court and the courts below in relation to the disciplinary procedure for provincially appointed judges put in place by the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.Q., c. T-16 (“C.J.A.”). Second, it challenges the constitutionality of s. 95 C.J.A. as regards the principle of the independence of the judiciary. Finally, it raises three sets of allegations relating to compliance with the rules of procedural fairness by the Conseil de la magistrature of Quebec and its committee of inquiry, the application of certain provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Canadian Charter”) and the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q., c. C‑12 (“Quebec Charter”) that protect a person who has been pardoned, and the fitness of the sanction imposed on the appellant in the present proceedings.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Société québécoise de gestion collective des droits de reproduction (Copibec) c. Université Laval, 2016 QCCS 900

[5] En somme, Copibec accuse l’Université d’avoir mis en place un « système institutionnel de violation des droits d’auteur »[3], et « d’inciter et encourager les membres de son personnel, ses mandataires et ses sous-traitants à se livrer à une violation systématique du droit d’auteur d’un très grand nombre d’auteurs, publiés par un très grand nombre d’éditeurs de divers pays »[4].

(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)