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. Toure v. Canada (Public Safety & Emergency Preparedness), 2018 ONCA 681

[26] The question regarding any issue in immigration habeas corpus matters, other than in the case of lengthy detentions of uncertain duration, will be, whether there is a complete, comprehensive and expert alternative remedy that is as broad and advantageous as a habeas corpus application: Chhina v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2017 ABCA 248 (CanLII), 56 Alta. L.R. (6th) 1, at para. 34. The application must not be a challenge to the detainee’s immigration status. Rather, it must address the question of whether the detention furthers the machinery of immigration control.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Emam v. Dutton Brock LLP, 2018 ONSC 4852

[70] Accordingly, the onus in this case falls on the respondent solicitors to prove that Mr. Brock’s April 15, 2011 letter to Mr. Neiman forms the basis of the financial terms of the retainer agreement between the solicitors and the client.
[71] Based on my review of the affidavit evidence and my findings of fact where the evidence is in conflict, it is my view that the solicitors have failed to meet the “heavy onus” placed on them to prove that Mr. Emam accepted the terms set out in the April 15, 2011 letter.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Schiavone v. Woods, 2018 ONSC 4789

[56] Nevertheless, the expert opinion evidence of Professor Solomon and Mr. Summerville confirmed what the applicable industry standards are for commercial hosts and that the available evidence confirms that the Ceeps did not meet those industry standards and applicable standard of care by not providing adequate security on their premises to prevent an assault on the plaintiff by one of its patrons and not ensuring that its patrons who had been over served alcohol on its premises did not pose a risk to members of the public. That would be relevant and necessary evidence for the Court to consider with no potential harm to either the trial process or the hearing of this motion. R. v. Abbey, 2009 ONCA 624 (CanLII).

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Bérubé c.- Fédération des inventeurs du Québec, 2018 QCCS 3459

[2] Le demandeur, M. Benjamin Bérubé, allègue avoir retenu les services de la FIQ en 2015 afin qu’elle effectue des recherches d’antériorité et qu’elle l’aide à obtenir un brevet provisoire aux États-Unis. À cette fin, il aurait déboursé plus de 3 000 $. Il serait également devenu membre de la FIQ moyennant une cotisation annuelle de 95 $. En plus d’être insatisfait de la nature et de la qualité des services qui lui ont été rendus, M. Bérubé aurait subséquemment découvert que la FIQ était en réalité une entreprise frauduleuse qui, par l’entremise de fausses représentations et autres manœuvres dolosives, exploiterait systématiquement la vulnérabilité de petits inventeurs néophytes en matière de protection et de promotion d’inventions.

(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)