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. Ontario (Disability Support Program) v. Tranchemontagne, 2010 ONCA 593

[2] For both men, the impact of their alcoholism was so severe that they satisfied the criteria in s. 4 of the ODSPA for being disabled. However, the Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”) denied the respondents’ applications for disability benefits based on s. 5(2) of the ODSPA. That section disqualifies from eligibility for disability benefits one category of disabled people who would otherwise qualify: those who are disabled solely because of dependence on alcohol, drugs or some other chemically active substance (the “sole impairment group”).

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. British Columbia Teachers’ Federation v. British Columbia, 2015 BCCA 184

[116] Although we agree with the trial judge that the Province was not acting as employer when it consulted with the BCTF, we consider it to be artificial and formalistic to assign this fact any significance in this s. 2(d) analysis. Section 2(d) confers on workers the right to a process through which they can attempt to influence their working conditions by making collective representations. In most cases only the employer will have control over the working conditions, so the process should be one in which workers can make representations to their employer. Sometimes, however, government will also have influence over the working conditions—for instance because the working conditions also touch on matters of public policy and government is contemplating legislation. In these cases, providing workers with an opportunity to make representations directly to government enhances their ability to attempt to influence their working conditions. It is irrelevant to the constitutionality of the legislation that government is not their employer and is not acting as their employer.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. R. v Vallentgoed, 2016 ABCA 358

[62] In the context of these appeals, “relevance” relates to whether the maintenance records of the breathalyzer instrument make the accuracy of the blood alcohol readings more or less probable than they would otherwise be. The Crown is attempting to prove the blood alcohol level of the accused, and the issue is the relationship between the maintenance records, the reliability of the blood alcohol readings from the instrument, and ultimately the blood alcohol level of the accused.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Limouzin c. Side City Studios Inc., 2016 QCCA 1810

[63] En acceptant de procéder comme il l’a fait, c’est-à-dire sans gérer le dossier ni fixer l’audition de la demande d’injonction interlocutoire, le Tribunal a compromis les droits des appelants Limouzin, Larouche et BLU. Pour ces derniers, le résultat est lourd de conséquences. Quatre mois après l’institution du recours, ils sont toujours contraints de suspendre leurs activités commerciales, alors qu’ils n’ont pas véritablement eu l’occasion d’être entendus, du moins comme ils auraient dû l’être s’il s’était agi d’une injonction interlocutoire.

(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.