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. Flirty Girl Fitness Inc. v Hottie Body Boutique Inc., 2017 ONSC 4158

[83] There was, in any event, no breach of fiduciary duty by either sister in negotiating the agreement with Hottie Body Boutique, which was fully disclosed to the shareholders of Flirty Girl Fitness and beneficial to the corporation. The breaches of fiduciary duty were to the fellow shareholders who were not told of the sisters’ plans for a “switch” in ownership once Hottie Body Boutique’s sunk costs were repaid. At the time at which Kerry commenced this action, the switch had not occurred, and it appears that it was the prospect of it not occurring that prompted Kerry to launch this action. She was upset because Hottie Body Boutique was rebranding itself as “Elle.”

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. R. v. George, 2017 SCC 38

[2] Sexual crimes are disproportionately committed against vulnerable populations, including youth. The “reasonable steps” requirement in s. 150.1(4) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 — which requires an accused person who is five or more years older than a complainant who is 14 years of age or more but under the age of 16, to take “all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the complainant” before sexual contact — seeks to protect young people from such crimes. It does so by placing the responsibility for preventing adult/youth sexual activity where it belongs: with adults. Parliament’s allocation of responsibility to adults is crucial for protecting young people from sexual crimes. However, through s. 676(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, Parliament limits Crown appeals against acquittals in proceedings by indictment to “question[s] of law alone.” As a result, Parliament has accepted that an acquittal at trial on an indictable offence cannot be overturned unless an error of law was made. As the trial judgment below concerned indictable offences and contained no errors of law, Ms. George’s acquittals were sustained and her appeal was allowed.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Lau v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2017 BCCA 253

[35] Whether or not alleged misconduct provided just cause for dismissal is a question of mixed fact and law: Steel v. Coast Capital Savings Credit Union, 2015 BCCA 127 (CanLII) at para. 31; Silva v. Leippi, 2011 BCCA 495 (CanLII) at para. 45. Where the issue on appeal involves the interpretation of the evidence as a whole, the standard of review on appeal is one of palpable and overriding error unless the judge made an extricable error of law or principle: Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33 (CanLII) at paras. 36‑37.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales c. Bédard, 2017 QCCQ 7437

[81] Ici, il ne s’agit de trancher la sagesse ou le caractère opportun d’augmenter les amendes pour contrer la criminalité et les entrepreneurs qui travaillent au noir, mais bien si la peine est exagérément disproportionnée au point d’être intolérable et justifie la déclaration d’inopérabilité.

[82] L’objectif des modifications législatives visées par le projet de Loi no 35 était d’assainir l’industrie de la construction en y enrayer les comportements frauduleux et les criminels qui pouvaient s’y trouver. Le message lancé par le législateur c’est que ceux qui fraudent le gouvernement seront sévèrement sanctionnés.

(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.