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. Khan, 2017 ONCA 114

[44] The trial judge properly placed the prior consistent statement on the scale in assessing the credibility of the complainant’s in-court testimony by considering the circumstances in which she made her initial complaint to Constable Flint. To this extent, the prior consistent statement does add to the credibility of the complainant’s in-court testimony and had probative value beyond mere repetition. It was evidence of the sequence and timing of events and the emotional state of the complainant at the time of the utterance, and assisted the trial judge in evaluating the credibility of the complainant’s in-court testimony. The trial judge’s use of the prior consistent statement was proper.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Grivicic v Alberta Health Services (Tom Baker Cancer Centre), 2017 ABCA 246

[3] A belief that wrongdoing has occurred does not automatically give rise to a cause of action in law. It is essential in a negligence action that a plaintiff put before the court appropriate evidence that will help the trial judge determine whether the elements of negligence have been proven. This will sometimes include expert evidence on complex matters, even at summary judgment applications. In this case, Mrs. Grivicic asked the court to look at her husband’s medical records and draw conclusions about his condition and treatment. [Courts are not always equipped to evaluate complex medical evidence.] This is why parties tender experts to assist the courts, and why there are special rules around the use of experts.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571

[1] This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into the following descriptions: Detaxers; Freemen or Freemen-on-the-Land; Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens; Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International (CERI); Moorish Law; and other labels – there is no closed list. In the absence of a better moniker, I have collectively labelled them as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants [“OPCA litigants”], to functionally define them collectively for what they literally are. These persons employ a collection of techniques and arguments promoted and sold by ‘gurus’ (as hereafter defined) to disrupt court operations and to attempt to frustrate the legal rights of governments, corporations, and individuals.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Uniprix inc. c. Gestion Gosselin et Bérubé inc., 2017 CSC 43

[1] Le droit civil québécois accorde une place fondamentale au principe de l’autonomie de la volonté. Cette liberté contractuelle permet aux parties à un contrat de régir leur relation comme elles le souhaitent, dans les limites prévues par la loi et l’ordre public. Ce pourvoi permet à notre Cour de cerner une partie de ces limites, au regard de la légalité de certaines obligations contenues dans un contrat dont les effets sont potentiellement perpétuels.

(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.