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. Pritchard v. Van Nes, 2016 BCSC 686

[65] I find Mr. Pritchard has proven that Ms. Van Nes’ initial Facebook posts and her subsequent replies to her “friends”’ comments were defamatory, in that they tended to lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person. The ordinary and natural meaning of Van Nes’ comments unequivocally described Mr. Pritchard as a “nutter”, a “creep”, and an abnormal person.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571

[1] This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into the following descriptions: Detaxers; Freemen or Freemen-on-the-Land; Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens; Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International (CERI); Moorish Law; and other labels – there is no closed list. In the absence of a better moniker, I have collectively labelled them as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants [“OPCA litigants”], to functionally define them collectively for what they literally are. These persons employ a collection of techniques and arguments promoted and sold by ‘gurus’ (as hereafter defined) to disrupt court operations and to attempt to frustrate the legal rights of governments, corporations, and individuals.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Sobeys West Inc v Alberta College of Pharmacists, 2016 ABQB 232

[34] Further, the Inducement Prohibitions do not add flexibility to the role of the pharmacists so that the health system operates with maximum effectiveness. Although the third principle guiding the legislation, that the health profession regulatory system should be transparent to the public, is not directly at issue, it bears noting that the Inducement Prohibitions are selective in that they do not prohibit, for example, free home delivery of drugs, free parking to the consumers of drugs, the charging of reduced or complete waiver of dispensing drugs’ fees or co-op patronage returns. That selective approach does not appear to be transparent. The fourth objective regarding the regulatory process, along with the fifth objective that the system should support the efficient and effective delivery of health services, is in no way reflected in the Inducement Prohibitions.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Rice c. Agence du revenu du Québec, 2016 QCCA 666

[21] Après avoir caractérisé le droit revendiqué par les appelants et analysé la preuve, le juge conclut que les échanges faits à l’intérieur des nations iroquoises – essentiellement des objets à valeur spirituelle troqués à des fins rituelles, sociales ou diplomatiques – n’avaient aucun caractère commercial, de sorte qu’il est impossible de conclure à l’existence d’un droit ancestral de cette nature. Selon lui, le droit éminemment commercial réclamé par les appelants ne constituait pas une activité faisant partie intégrante de la culture distinctive des Mohawks avant le contact avec les Européens. Conséquemment, les prétentions des appelants constituent une extension indéfendable d’activités secondaires d’échanges entre nations autochtones.

(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.