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. Major League Baseball v. Cardinal, 2018 ONSC 714

[5] In anticipation of a game later that afternoon, on October 17, 2016, Mr. Cardinal sought interim and interlocutory injunctions in the Superior Court of Justice to restrain the Cleveland Team from displaying the Team Name and/or Logo; to restrain Rogers from using or displaying the Team Name and Logo in its broadcasts and in the Rogers Centre; and to restrain MLB from broadcasting the Team Name and Logo through its television networks in Canada. The injunction application was heard and dismissed by McEwen J.[2]

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 SCR 103, 1986 CanLII 46

1. The Chief Justice‑‑This appeal concerns the constitutionality of s. 8 of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N‑1. The section provides, in brief, that if the Court finds the accused in possession of a narcotic, he is presumed to be in possession for the purpose of trafficking. Unless the accused can establish the contrary, he must be convicted of trafficking. The Ontario Court of Appeal held that this provision constitutes a “reverse onus” clause and is unconstitutional because it violates one of the core values of our criminal justice system, the presumption of innocence, now entrenched in s. 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Crown has appealed.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Blais v Alberta (Minister of Municipal Affairs), 2018 ABQB 71

[69] The Minister submits that it was her discretionary policy decision to make the Report available to the public, in order to ensure transparency and accountability to the people of Alberta. That decision, she argues, is entitled to deference, if it is at all reviewable. The Minister contends that to the extent that the PIA, s 13 is relevant to the decision to publish the Report, the low level of procedural fairness that Ms. Blais was entitled to, pursuant to the Baker factors, was met because Ms. Blais had the opportunity to speak with the Inspector and provide records during the Inspection.

[70] For the reasons already provided, I conclude that the Minister’s decision to make the Report’s allegations regarding Ms. Blais public, before ensuring that Ms. Blais was given reasonable notice of the allegations and an opportunity to give evidence in response, was unreasonable and in breach of the duty of procedural fairness owed to Ms. Blais.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Québec (Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail) c. Caron, 2018 CSC 3

[3] Le présent pourvoi soulève la question de savoir si la Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CSST) et la Commission des lésions professionnelles (CLP) doivent tenir compte de l’obligation de l’employeur de prendre des mesures d’accommodement raisonnables à l’égard d’un travailleur victime d’une lésion professionnelle lorsqu’elles décident si un retour au travail est possible en vertu du régime, et selon quelles modalités.

(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)