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. Economical Mutual Insurance Company v. Caughy, 2016 ONCA 226

[17] Does parking a vehicle constitute the type of aberrant use contemplated by the Supreme Court in Citadel? In my view, it does not. The examples cited by Binnie J. were limited to circumstances in which a vehicle is not being used as a vehicle but for some other purpose. Parking a vehicle is not aberrant to its use as a vehicle. A vehicle is designed to be parked. Indeed, it is safe to say that most vehicles are parked the most of the time. I would conclude, therefore, that parking a vehicle is an ordinary and well-known activity to which vehicles are put.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Luft v Zinkhofer, 2016 ABQB 182

[464] I find that the Lufts were not required to attend a binding JDR. Their decision not to do the only option they were left with after Mr. Zinkhofer gave away their rights, does not snap the chain of causation, such that they were the cause of the loss of the litigation against the Woods. Attending the binding JDR on the terms of the counsel agreement was also not a necessary, reasonable step in mitigation. Further, the evidence shows the Lufts did not want to go to a binding JDR: they wanted a public process and a right of appeal. Further, the JDR would be on the unfavourable terms of the counsel agreement. The Lufts’ ability to secure an acceptable settlement and their position would be prejudiced by their inability to have the evidence of Mrs. Wood and the discount they may face from the litigation risk of not having pled defamation. In the circumstances, their decision to pursue Mr. Zinkhofer, without attending the JDR he agreed to attend on their behalf without their knowledge, is “an objectively reasonable decision.”

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Meehan v Good, 2016 ONSC 2110

[54] It was Cardill’s position that once he informed the plaintiffs that he had discovered Mr. Good may have been negligent and instructed the plaintiffs to obtain legal advice elsewhere, his duty to them on this matter was finished. He argued that it was the plaintiffs who were the authors of the missed limitation period when they did not seek legal advice about their rights in a negligence claim in a timely fashion, notwithstanding having been advised by Cardill to do so.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Sauvé c. St-Jérôme (Ville de), 2015 QCCS 6476

[1] Depuis plus de vingt-cinq ans, les infractions en matière de stationnement sont considérées par les tribunaux québécois comme des infractions de responsabilité absolue à l’encontre desquelles on ne peut faire valoir aucune défense, car la déclaration de culpabilité découle de la simple preuve de l’accomplissement de l’infraction.
[2] Ainsi, une personne qui, comme l’appelante, commet une erreur sincère et raisonnable, en effectuant son paiement dans le mauvais parcomètre, doit être trouvée coupable, même si personne ne doute qu’elle a commis cette erreur de bonne foi.

(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.