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. Chin v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2018 ONSC 2072

[2] On May 15, 2015, the Hearing Division of the Respondent Law Society of Upper Canada (the “Law Society”) found that the Appellant knowingly participated in mortgage fraud in respect of six residential real estate transactions. Her licence to practice law was revoked. The Hearing Tribunal found that maintaining public confidence was the primary consideration of the Law Society and that a consistent message must be sent that the Law Society refuses to tolerate fraudulent conduct.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Linett v. Aird & Berlis LLP, 2018 ONSC 2144

[25] Whether a delay is inordinate is determined simply by reference to the length of time from the commencement of the proceeding to the motion to dismiss. There is no general rule or time period beyond which a delay will be held to be inordinate; it is necessary to consider in each case the nature of the proceeding, the issues raised and the length of time that would ordinarily be required to deal with the various steps in the litigation.[4] In the context of an action, courts have been prepared to find that a delay of 10 or more years constitutes an inordinate delay.[5] Conversely, a delay of approximately 7.5 years was held not to be inordinate in the context of an action against a number of defendants for breach of fiduciary obligations.[6]

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72

[1] It is not a crime in Canada to sell sex for money. However, it is a crime to keep a bawdy-house, to live on the avails of prostitution or to communicate in public with respect to a proposed act of prostitution. It is argued that these restrictions on prostitution put the safety and lives of prostitutes at risk, and are therefore unconstitutional.

[2] These appeals and the cross-appeal are not about whether prostitution should be legal or not. They are about whether the laws Parliament has enacted on how prostitution may be carried out pass constitutional muster. I conclude that they do not. I would therefore make a suspended declaration of invalidity, returning the question of how to deal with prostitution to Parliament.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Guertin c. Parent, 2018 QCCA 517

[23] L’appelant a plaidé à l’audience que le règlement est un élément inconnu qui a vicié son consentement. À mon avis, le fait que la demeure soit sur une pente attenante à un cours d’eau était un indice assez important pour inciter l’acheteur, qui doit agir en acheteur prudent et diligent, à vérifier l’existence d’un risque particulier comme le glissement de terrain. D’ailleurs, l’acte d’acquisition des intimés y fait référence et était en possession de l’avocat de l’appelant tout comme le certificat de localisation d’avril 2004 qui indique une « limite de construction » jusqu’à l’arrière de la maison. Si l’acheteur signe la promesse d’achat sans faire les vérifications nécessaires ou ne donne pas instructions à son inspecteur de faire des vérifications qui s’imposent, ou même sans indiquer aux parties venderesses que l’absence de risque de glissement de terrain est une condition essentielle à la vente (1400 C.c.Q.), il commet alors une erreur inexcusable. Son vice de consentement ne peut donc pas le libérer de sa promesse d’achat.

(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)