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. September Seventh Entertainment Limited v. The Feldman Agency, 2017 ONCA 815

[6] While sarcasm is best avoided in judgment writing, the trial judge’s comments clearly targeted the extravagant and unsupported public policy claim advanced by Mr. Gauthier in his affidavit. The remark spoke to the merits of that argument and no reasonable person could interpret the comment as casting aspersions on Mr. Gauthier’s indigenous culture and beliefs. The other comment made in argument is equally incapable of being understood as derogatory toward indigenous people. We need not refer to it.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Tran v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2017 SCC 50

[2] This appeal concerns the obligation of permanent residents to avoid “serious criminality”, as set out in s. 36(1)(a) of the IRPA. This obligation is breached when a permanent resident is convicted of a federal offence punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years, or of a federal offence for which a term of imprisonment of more than 6 months has been imposed.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Teva Canada Ltd. v. TD Canada Trust, 2017 SCC 51

[1] A pharmaceutical company was the victim of a fraudulent cheque scheme implemented by one of its employees. It claimed that the collecting banks involved in negotiating the fraudulent cheques are liable for conversion. Under s. 20(5) of the Bills of Exchange Act,[1] it is a defence to the tort of conversion if cheques are made out to fictitious or non-existing payees.

[2] The banks argued that the payees in this case were fictitious or non-existing and that they were not, as a result, liable for conversion.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Uniprix inc. v. 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.

Start the discussion!

Leave a Reply

(Your email address will not be published or distributed)