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. Maclean v. The Barking Frog, 2013 HRTO 630

[2] The facts of the case before me are relatively straightforward. The applicant is a young man who lives in London, Ontario. Late in the evening on September 6, 2012, he and some friends went to a local bar, The Barking Frog, and approached the doorman to inquire as to the cover charge. The applicant states that he was told that the cover was $20 for the men but only $10 for the women in the group. The applicant was affronted and, unwilling to part with the requisite $20, did not enter the bar.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. 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)

3. David v. Loblaw, 2018 ONSC 198

[6] Loblaw spokespeople have refrained from describing the card offer as a goodwill gesture, but the press has covered it that way. And, indeed, Loblaw’ insistence that the cost of the card program is not an estimate of damages, and that the card is not a substitute for damages if and when they are awarded in the class actions, lends itself to this description. Along these lines, counsel for Loblaw is specific in characterizing the card as an expression of remorse and an effort to regain the confidence of customers after having done something the company regrets, and not as a strategy to forestall any eventual damage payments.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was R. c. Jordan, [2016] 1 RCS 631, 2016 CSC 27

[1] La justice rendue en temps utile est l’une des caractéristiques d’une société libre et démocratique. Elle revêt une importance particulière en matière criminelle. L’alinéa 11b) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés en est la preuve, puisqu’il garantit à l’inculpé le droit « d’être jugé dans un délai raisonnable ».

[2] La population canadienne s’attend en outre à ce que son système de justice criminelle juge les inculpés de manière diligente. Quand les mois suivant une inculpation au criminel deviennent des années, tout le monde en pâtit. Les inculpés demeurent dans l’incertitude et souvent détenus avant leur procès. Les victimes et leurs familles, qui dans bien des cas ont subi des pertes tragiques, ne peuvent tourner la page. Le public, quant à lui, dont l’intérêt est servi lorsque les inculpés sont traduits rapidement en justice, est frustré avec raison de voir des années passer avant la tenue d’un procès.

(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)