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. R. v. Jones, 2017 SCC 60

[1] The appellant, Mr. Jones, was convicted of several firearms and drug trafficking offences. His convictions rest on records of text messages seized from a Telus account associated with his co-accused pursuant to a production order obtained under s. 487.012 (now s. 487.014) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (the “Production Order”). As in the courts below, the appellant challenges the Production Order under s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He argues that law enforcement must obtain a “wiretap” authorization under Part VI of the Code to seize records of historical text messages from a service provider in order for the seizure to comply with s. 8 of the Charter.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. DiPierdomenico v. Esposito, 2017 ONSC 7391

[60] The plaintiffs ask for punitive damages, which they argue are warranted in the present case due to the “high-handed, malicious, arbitrary or reprehensible misconduct that departs to a marked degree from ordinary standards of decent behaviour:” Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 18 (CanLII) at para. 94. Punitive damages may be awarded for trespass for fraudulent, malicious, or calculated conduct, where the defendant “has shown a wanton disregard for the plaintiff’s rights as property owner”: Pyper v. Crausen (2008), 37 C.E.L.R. (3d) 257 (Ont. S.C.) at para. 44.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9

[1] This appeal calls on the Court to consider, once again, the troubling question of the approach to be taken in judicial review of decisions of administrative tribunals. The recent history of judicial review in Canada has been marked by ebbs and flows of deference, confounding tests and new words for old problems, but no solutions that provide real guidance for litigants, counsel, administrative decision makers or judicial review judges. The time has arrived for a reassessment of the question.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was R. c. Laurin, 2017 QCCQ 14392

[27] La défense a soumis à la Cour quelques décisions où des peines moindres ont été imposées dans le cas spécifique de policier condamné pour des conduites dangereuses causant la mort ou des lésions, notamment l’arrêt Markovic [1998] J.Q. no 466 dans lequel une peine avec sursis a été accordée, ce qui n’est plus possible. Il est difficile de repérer « une fourchette » de peine dans ces exemples soumis. Il s’agit toujours de circonstances particulières qui, bien sûr, peuvent servir d’exemples, mais ne permettent pas de repérer une tendance manifeste bien établie. Chaque cas est un cas d’espèce.

(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)