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. Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9

[1] This appeal calls on the Court to consider, once again, the troubling question of the approach to be taken in judicial review of decisions of administrative tribunals. The recent history of judicial review in Canada has been marked by ebbs and flows of deference, confounding tests and new words for old problems, but no solutions that provide real guidance for litigants, counsel, administrative decision makers or judicial review judges. The time has arrived for a reassessment of the question.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 SCC 31

[1] This appeal concerns several complaints under the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6 (“CHRA”), that were dismissed by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (“Tribunal”) in two decisions. The complaints alleged that the legislative entitlements to registration under the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5, were discriminatory practices prohibited by the CHRA. At issue before this Court is, first, whether deference is owed to a human rights tribunal interpreting its home statute and, second, whether the Tribunal’s decisions dismissing the complaints as direct attacks on legislation were reasonable.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Ewert v. Canada, 2018 SCC 30

[1] A person who is convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or longer becomes an inmate of Canada’s federal correctional system. Parliament has directed in s. 3 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20 (“CCRA”), that the purpose of the correctional system is to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society. This purpose is to be achieved by two means: first, by carrying out sentences through the safe and humane custody of offenders and, second, by assisting in their rehabilitation and their reintegration into the community as law-abiding citizens through the provision of programs in penitentiaries and the community. The Correctional Service of Canada (“CSC”) is the entity charged with ensuring that the purpose of the correctional system is achieved.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Montréal (Ville) c. Lonardi, 2018 CSC 29

[1] Ce pourvoi illustre la tension apparente qui existe parfois entre deux principes centraux de la responsabilité extracontractuelle en droit civil québécois. D’une part, le principe voulant que l’indemnisation du préjudice soit intégrale. D’autre part, celui voulant que, sauf exception, une personne ne soit tenue de réparer que le seul préjudice qu’elle a causé par sa faute.

(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)