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. Cowper-Smith v. Morgan, 2016 BCCA 200

[62] As previously stated, the central issue in this appeal is whether the judge erred in finding that the presumption of undue influence was not rebutted because of the inadequacy of the legal advice provided to Elizabeth by Ms. Iverson and Mr. Easdon when she signed the June 22, 2001 documents. If the judge correctly found that the presumption of undue influence was not rebutted, it follows that the presumption of resulting trust was also not rebutted because Elizabeth was unduly influenced by Gloria when she made the gratuitous transfer of the Property and executed the Declaration of Trust that emptied her estate of all her significant assets.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. University of Calgary, 2016 SCC 53

[1] This case involves a judicial review of a decision pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. F-25 (“FOIPP”). A delegate of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta (“Commissioner”) ordered the production of records over which solicitor-client privilege was claimed in order to verify that the privilege was properly asserted. At the heart of this appeal is whether s. 56(3) of FOIPP, which requires a public body to produce required records to the Commissioner “[d]espite . . . any privilege of the law of evidence”, allows the Commissioner and her delegates to review documents over which solicitor-client privilege is claimed.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Lizotte v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2016 SCC 52

[1] Litigation privilege protects against the compulsory disclosure of communications and documents whose dominant purpose is preparation for litigation. Although it differs from the professional secrecy of lawyers (solicitor‑client privilege) in several respects, the two concepts do overlap to some extent. Since Canada (Privacy Commissioner) v. Blood Tribe Department of Health, 2008 SCC 44 (CanLII), [2008] 2 S.C.R. 574, it has been settled law that any legislative provision capable of interfering with solicitor‑client privilege must be read narrowly and that a legislature may not abrogate that privilege by inference, but may only do so using clear, explicit and unequivocal language. The issue in this appeal is whether this principle also applies to litigation privilege.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Multani c. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys, [2006] 1 RCS 256, 2006 CSC 6

1 Il s’agit, dans le présent pourvoi, de déterminer si la décision d’un conseil des commissaires interdisant à un des élèves relevant de ce conseil de porter un kirpan à l’école, tel que le requiert sa religion, porte atteinte à la liberté de religion de cet élève. Dans l’affirmative, il faut se demander si cette atteinte constitue une limite raisonnable pouvant être justifiée par le besoin de maintenir un environnement sécuritaire à cette école.

(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.