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. Lloyd, 2016 SCC 13

[1] Parliament has the power to proscribe conduct as criminal and determine the punishment for it, and judges have the duty to apply the laws Parliament adopts on punishment to offenders. But individuals are also entitled to receive, and judges have a duty to impose, sentences that are constitutional having regard to the circumstances of each case that comes before them. Sometimes a judge’s duty to apply a mandatory minimum sentence provision conflicts with the judge’s duty to impose a sentence that does not violate the guarantees of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In this appeal, the Court is once again confronted with the problem of how the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence can be reconciled with the imperative that no person shall be punished in a manner than infringes the Charter.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Hearn v. Maslak-McLeod Gallery Inc., 2017 ONSC 58805

[2] In this action, the Plaintiff, a renowned Canadian musician and member of the band Barenaked Ladies, claims that the Defendant, Maslak-McLeod Gallery Inc, (the “Gallery”), sold him a painting entitled “Spirit Energy of Mother Earth”. The painting is purportedly by Norval Morrisseau, a renowned Anishinaabe artist and founder of the Woodland school of Canadian Indigenous art. The Plaintiff alleges that the painting is a fake and that it was not in fact painted by Norval Morrisseau.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. R. v. Livingston, 2017 ONCJ 645

[32] In summary, experts owe a duty to the court to provide evidence that is fair, objective and non-partisan. Independence and impartiality are to be considered at the threshold stage. In White Burgess the Supreme Court of Canada held that a proposed expert’s independence and impartiality goes to admissibility and not simply to weight. The analysis of a witness’s independence and impartiality is properly undertaken under the “qualified expert” prong of the Mohan test. The court’s assessment is not to be based on the appearance of bias. In White Burgess at para. 49, Cromwell J. stated that the threshold requirement is not particularly onerous and it will be likely be quite rare that a proposed expert’s evidence would be ruled inadmissible for failing to meet it.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys c. Singh Multani, 2004 CanLII 31405 (QC CA)

[6] Les appelants se pourvoient contre une décision de la Cour supérieure qui a accueilli une requête en jugement déclaratoire des intimés et permis à Gurbaj Singh de porter son kirpan à l’école en respectant certaines conditions.

(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.

Start the discussion!

Leave a Reply

(Your email address will not be published or distributed)