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. Rankin (Rankin’s Garage & Sales) v. J.J., 2018 SCC 19

[1] A vehicle is stolen from a commercial garage. The vehicle is crashed. Someone is injured. Does the business owe a duty of care to the injured party? The question in this appeal is whether the courts below erred in recognizing a duty of care owed by a business that stores vehicles to someone who is injured following the theft of a vehicle.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Jackson v. Stephen Durbin and Associates, 2018 ONCA 424

[1] The sole issue in this appeal is whether a “Results Achieved Fee” charged by the appellant law firm in a family law matter is a prohibited contingency fee agreement under the Solicitors Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S. 15 (the “Act”). I have concluded that the fee is a contingency fee agreement within the meaning of the Act and is thus prohibited.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Trost v. Conservative Party of Canada, 2018 ONSC 2733

[28] With all due respect, I believe the decision in Graff was wrongly decided, and I would not follow it in this case. In Graff, the Court accepted that the arrangements between party members were essentially contractual in nature; that the party, in its leadership contest, was not exercising a public decision making power; and that the party was not an agent of government nor controlled by government (paras. 12-14). However, the Court noted that parties receive considerable public funds, and they exercise a compulsory power over their members. It is apparent from the reasons that the Court focused on the importance of the decisions of political parties to the voting public. Nordheimer J. relied heavily on the “exceptional circumstances” factor, noting that Setia and Air Canada provide a definition of that category. However, had he looked to the sparse case law cited in Air Canada, he would have found that this category still requires a consideration of the nexus between the decision and an exercise of governmental power.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Québec (Procureure générale) c. Alliance du personnel professionnel et technique de la santé et des services sociaux, 2018 CSC 17

[1] En 1996, le Québec a adopté un régime législatif pour remédier à la discrimination salariale systémique à l’égard des femmes. La Loi sur l’équité salariale, L.Q. 1996, c. 43 (maintenant RLRQ, c. E‑12.001), établissait un processus de signalement, de planification, de comparaison, d’évaluation et de versement d’ajustements salariaux pour faire en sorte que les employeurs versent un salaire égal pour un travail de valeur égale. Une fois cet objectif atteint — l’équité salariale —, la Loi imposait aux employeurs l’obligation continue de maintenir cette équité. Elle conférait aussi aux salariés le droit de contester toute omission des employeurs de maintenir l’équité salariale et d’obtenir qu’il soit sans délai remédié entièrement à la situation.

(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.

Comments are closed.