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. R v Blanchard, 2016 ABQB 706

[65] The first obvious lie told by Blanchard relates to his ability to walk. He led everyone to believe that he was incapable of walking at all and was confined to a wheelchair. Indeed, not one person who testified knew that he could walk. The police, Elizabeth Leenheer, his ex-wife (Barbara Roth) and her son Tyronne Brown, all believed he was confined to a wheelchair, though a couple of them said he could move from a chair to his wheelchair and take a step. Ms. Roth testified that she visited him while he was in the Prince Albert Penitentiary and she never saw him walk during the 150 visits she made in the five months prior to June 2013. He may have mentioned on October 16, 2013 to Det. Hayduk that he had some mobility but he never exhibited any ability to actually walk to anyone who saw him after his release.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. IFP Technologies (Canada) Inc. v EnCana Midstream and Marketing, 2017 ABCA 157

[200] Against this background, I return to why it was reasonable for IFP to refuse to consent to PCR’s disposition to Wiser. IFP was rightly concerned that the manner in which Wiser would exploit the lands at Eyehill Creek through primary production would severely affect IFP’s ability to pursue a thermal project from a practical and economic perspective. From what IFP knew at the time, Wiser was a company uninterested in thermal production and whose extraction methods consisted solely of primary production. What is more, because Wiser had no interest in thermal potential, IFP was understandably concerned that Wiser would not use any precautions or mitigation techniques in recovering petroleum through primary means.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. R. v. Heron, 2017 ONCA 441

[1] The appellant was at the relevant times a police officer with the Niagara Regional Police. He was convicted of conspiracy to smuggle cheese into Canada from the United States without paying the required duties, and related charges (in contravention of the Customs Act), and of breach of trust by a public official (in contravention of the Criminal Code). He was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for the smuggling offences and to one month’s imprisonment, consecutive, on the breach of trust offence.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Czornobaj c. R., 2017 QCCA 907

[6] L’appelante se pourvoit contre un verdict de culpabilité prononcé le 20 juin 2014 par un jury présidé par l’honorable Éliane B. Perreault de la Cour supérieure, district de Montréal, sur des accusations de négligence criminelle causant la mort (220(b) C.cr.) et de conduite dangereuse causant la mort (249(4) C.cr.)[1]. L’appelante demande également la permission d’appeler de la peine imposée, soit 90 jours de détention à purger de façon discontinue, assortie d’une probation de 3 ans comprenant l’exécution de 240 heures de travaux communautaires, et d’une interdiction de conduire pour une période de 10 ans. Seul ce dernier aspect de la peine est attaqué en appel.

(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.