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. Bhasin v. Hrynew, [2014] 3 SCR 494, 2014 SCC 71

[1] The key issues on this appeal come down to two straightforward questions: Does Canadian common law impose a duty on parties to perform their contractual obligations honestly? And, if so, did either of the respondents breach that duty? I would answer both questions in the affirmative. Finding that there is a duty to perform contracts honestly will make the law more certain, more just and more in tune with reasonable commercial expectations. It will also bring a measure of justice to the appellant, Mr. Bhasin, who was misled and lost the value of his business as a result.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. R v Mock, 2016 ABCA 293

[61] The central issue is whether the appellant was psychotic at the time of the offence. With respect, the evidence that he was then psychotic was overwhelming. That conclusion invalidates the evidence of Drs. Singh and Faltin whose opinions were based on the understanding that the appellant was not psychotic at that time. That leaves the other evidence including that of Drs. Hashman and Santana, which in our view established, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant was not criminally responsible due to a mental disorder.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), [2015] 1 SCR 331, 2015 SCC 5

[1] It is a crime in Canada to assist another person in ending her own life. As a result, people who are grievously and irremediably ill cannot seek a physician’s assistance in dying and may be condemned to a life of severe and intolerable suffering. A person facing this prospect has two options: she can take her own life prematurely, often by violent or dangerous means, or she can suffer until she dies from natural causes. The choice is cruel.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision Lours c. Montréal (Ville de), 2016 QCCS 4770

[32] Or, tel que nous le verrons ci-après, la Ville, par les définitions des mots «chien de type Pit bull» et «chien interdit» prévues dans le Règlement, et sous prétexte de faire de la prévention en matière de sécurité, vise clairement, par les Dispositions litigieuses, une catégorie très large de chiens qui, pour la plupart, ne sont pas dangereux, selon le véritable sens de ce terme.

(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.