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. David v. Loblaw, 2018 ONSC 6469

[4] I make no comment on the merits of those arguments here. They will doubtless be argued at a certification hearing some months down the road. I merely set out the background in order to illustrate why the request for funding approval has arisen. Given the discrepancy between, on one hand, the very large size of the claim and the expense of bringing it, and, on the other hand, the small size of a consumer purchase of packaged bread, the Plaintiffs have had to turn to third party funding in order to finance their action. Moreover, they have had to turn to the private financing market, as the expected magnitude of the funding needed is beyond the scope of the Class Proceedings Fund (“CPF”) in Ontario.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. R. v. Gubbins, 2018 SCC 44

[1] These appeals deal with the scope of the Crown’s disclosure obligations with respect to maintenance records of breathalyzer instruments. These instruments are used to determine the blood alcohol content of suspected drunk drivers. It is important that these instruments provide accurate results. These cases deal with what information is relevant to assessing the reliability of these instruments. Are the maintenance records part of first party disclosure, subject to inclusion in the Crown’s standard disclosure package? Or, are these records third party records, which require the defence to demonstrate their likely relevance before an order for disclosure can be made?

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corp. v. Hydro‑Québec, 2018 SCC 46

[1] The Churchill River basin in Labrador is one of the areas with the greatest hydroelectric potential in the world. In 1969, following several years of negotiations, two sophisticated entities, the Quebec Hydro‑Electric Commission (“Hydro‑Québec”) and the Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (“CFLCo”), signed a contract (“Power Contract” or “Contract”) that set out a legal and financial framework for harnessing that potential by building a hydroelectric plant (“Plant”) on the river. It was a huge project involving a substantial amount of money. The parties chose to allocate the risks and benefits of the Contract over a 65‑year period.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corp. c. Hydro-Québec, 2018 CSC 46

[1] Le bassin du fleuve Churchill au Labrador est l’une des zones à plus haut potentiel hydroélectrique au monde. En 1969, après plusieurs années de négociations, deux entités averties, la Commission hydroélectrique de Québec (« Hydro-Québec ») et la Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (« CFLCo »), signent un contrat (« Contrat d’électricité » ou « Contrat ») fixant le cadre juridique et financier qui allait leur permettre d’exploiter ce potentiel en construisant une centrale hydroélectrique (« Centrale ») sur le fleuve. Le projet est monumental et implique des sommes considérables. Les parties choisissent de répartir les risques et bénéfices du Contrat sur une période de 65 ans.

(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.