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. Schrenk v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2016 BCCA 146

[44] Applying those principles to the case at bar, the Tribunal certainly has jurisdiction in relation to an allegation that a person has forced the complainant, expressly or otherwise, to endure harassment at work. It had jurisdiction to address the response of the complainant’s employer to his complaint. It does not, however, have jurisdiction to address a complaint made against one who is rude, insulting or insufferable but who is not in a position to force the complainant to endure that conduct as a condition of his employment.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Canada v. Williams Lake Indian Band, 2016 FCA 63

[47] In my view, to adopt the Band’s position would be to overextend the interpretation of the pre-emption legislation. It is true that statutory interpretation requires an examination of the law’s text, context, and purpose: Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Canada, 2005 SCC 54 (CanLII) at para. 10, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 601. However, even if I accepted that one of the purposes of the pre-emption legislation was the protection of Indian settlements, it is questionable whether the legislation itself gives rise to a positive obligation towards the Band on the part of the colony to ensure that the provisions of the legislation were followed. In effect, the Band is asserting that a failure to enforce the provisions of the legislation against all those subject to the legislation amounts to a breach of the legislation itself by the colony. However, it is not necessary for me to decide this issue, as even if I were to accept the Band’s position in its entirety, my conclusion with respect to issue 4, namely that the subsequent actions of Canada remedied any possible breach by the colony, is determinative of this appeal.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Beazer v Tollestrup, 2016 ABQB 567

[92] The will, its contents, and the security documents all resulted from Carol’s concern to satisfy her obligations. Those obligations had been longstanding without any ability of Carol to satisfy them or any action taken by the Beazers and Jensen to collect upon them. It is obvious that no one contemplated that the security documents would immediately be acted upon, despite the wording of the Promissory Notes which places no restriction on the ability of the parties to make a formal demand for payment.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision R. c. Grant, [2009] 2 RCS 353, 2009 CSC 32

[1] Monsieur Grant interjette appel des déclarations de culpabilité prononcées contre lui quant à une série d’infractions relatives aux armes à feu. Les accusations portées contre lui découlaient de la saisie d’un revolver survenue à l’occasion d’un contact entre des policiers et lui sur un trottoir de Toronto. Les déclarations de culpabilité reposant sur le dépôt en preuve du revolver, il faut déterminer en l’espèce si cet élément de preuve a été obtenu par suite de la violation de droits garantis à M. Grant par la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés et, le cas échéant, s’il y avait lieu de l’exclure en application du par. 24(2) de la Charte.

(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.