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. Devry Smith Frank LLP v. Chopra, 2018 ONSC 1303

[30] In terms of the quality of its work, Mr. Chopra made no complaint, and there was no basis for a complaint. He was a difficult client with a difficult case, which notwithstanding the small value of the claim demanded a great deal of time, attention, and effort from DSF, from which they did not shirk. Based just on the work done and the quality of it, DSF would be entitled to payment of its invoices that totalled $117,939.20 even with the poor result for Mr. Chopra, who was adamant about having his day in court.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. R. v. Cuerrier, [1998] 2 SCR 371, 1998 CanLII 796 (SCC)

1 L’Heureux-Dubé J. — This appeal must determine whether the accused’s misrepresentation as to his HIV-positive status can nullify the complainants’ apparent consent to sexual intercourse so as to bring the sexual activity in question within the scope of the Criminal Code offence of aggravated assault. I have read the different reasons of my colleagues, Justices Cory and McLachlin, and although I agree with the result that they both reach, I disagree with the respective routes that they take to reach that result. In particular, I disagree with McLachlin J.’s conclusion that Parliament did not intend to move away from the strict common law approach to the vitiation of consent by fraud in the assault context. Likewise, although I share Cory J.’s conclusion that Parliament did intend such a change, I cannot agree with the new test that he articulates to determine the additional circumstances in which fraud will vitiate consent.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Unifor, Local 707A v Suncor Energy Inc, 2018 ABCA 75

[19] Moreover, the bulk of the current authority (both case law and arbitration) holds that it is unreasonable to randomly drug test even those employees in safety sensitive positions in a dangerous workplace. An arbitration panel will ultimately conduct the “delicate, case-by-case balancing required to preserve public safety concerns while protecting privacy”: Irving at para 19. In the interim, the balance of convenience favours the Union’s position. This was the conclusion reached by a majority of this Court in upholding the 2012 Injunction.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Mugesera c. Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration), [2005] 2 RCS 100, 2005 CSC 40

1 Notre Cour doit déterminer en l’espèce si la Cour d’appel fédérale a infirmé à tort la décision par laquelle la Commission de l’immigration et du statut de réfugié (Section d’appel) a conclu à l’inadmissibilité de l’intimé au Canada en application des sous‑al. 27(1)a.1)(ii) et 27(1)a.3)(ii) et des al. 27(1)g) et 19(1)j) de la Loi sur l’immigration, L.R.C. 1985, ch. I‑2 (désormais remplacée par la Loi sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés, L.C. 2001, ch. 27).

(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)