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. Lanigan v. PEITF, 2017 PECA 3

[17] The Teachers’ Federation asserts that the judgment is the product of (i) fundamental errors of law regarding interpretation and application of the duty of fair representation, and (ii) a multiplicity of factual errors involving findings not based on the evidence and contrary to the evidence, which are palpable in nature and overriding in effect. The Teachers’ Federation submits that the trial judge fundamentally misunderstood and incorrectly applied the applicable law to the facts of the case; applied an incorrect standard of review of a union’s conduct, and imposed duties not required of it by law. Regarding treatment of the evidence, it submits there were numerous palpable errors that sometimes individually and cumulatively render each essential finding and conclusion erroneous. These errors of law interact in their effect, and are so basic and pervasive that they undermine all six findings of breach of duty.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Green v. Law Society of Manitoba, 2017 SCC 20

[1] A lawyer’s professional education is a lifelong process. Legislation is amended, the common law evolves, and practice standards change as a result of technological advances and other developments. Lawyers must be vigilant in order to update their knowledge, strengthen their skills, and ensure that they adhere to accepted ethical and professional standards in their practices.

[2] This appeal concerns a basic component of a lawyer’s education: continuing professional development (“CPD”). At issue is whether The Law Society of Manitoba (“Law Society”) can impose rules that couple a mandatory CPD program with a possible suspension for failing to meet the program’s requirements.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. R. v. DeSautel, 2017 BCPC 84

[87] I am asked to find that there has either been no break in the Lakes use of Sinixt traditional territory in British Columbia or, if there has, that it has been through no fault of the Lakes who say they have never given up their claim over their traditional territory despite a brief absence relative to the many thousands of years their ancestors lived in this land. On the other hand, the Crown argues the Sinixt’s removal to Washington State is fatal, if not by reason of the assertion of sovereignty in 1846, then by voluntarily ceasing to observe the practice of hunting in their traditional territory in British Columbia after 1930. This, the Crown says, is sufficient to break the chain of continuity necessary for proof of an aboriginal right under the Van der Peet test.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Godbout c. Pagé, 2017 CSC 18

[1] En 1978, la Loi sur l’assurance automobile, RLRQ, c. A-25 (« Loi ») est entrée en vigueur et modifiait tout un volet du régime de la responsabilité civile en droit québécois. Elle créait en effet de nouvelles règles applicables aux accidents liés à l’automobile, y compris aux indemnités payables tant pour les dommages matériels que pour les dommages corporels qui en résultent.

[2] Depuis l’adoption de la Loi, les tribunaux se sont prononcés à de nombreuses reprises pour cerner les contours de ces règles.

(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.