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. Weir-Jones Technical Services Incorporated v Purolator Courier Ltd, 2019 ABCA 49

[30] Addressing the “standard of proof” is not therefore a stand-alone test for whether summary judgment is possible or appropriate. Proving the factual basis of the application on a balance of probabilities is not in itself sufficient for summary adjudication, but merely one of the steps in determining if there is a genuine issue requiring a trial. Even if the factual record is proven on a balance of probabilities, the presiding judge must still be sufficiently satisfied and comfortable with the record to conclude that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial. Hryniak v Mauldin does not contemplate summary adjudication on difficult factual questions, requiring a tough call on contested facts, on the basis that “51% carries the day”: see Hryniak v Mauldin at para. 51. Those are cases where the summary disposition judge would usually determine that there is a “genuine issue requiring a trial”, even if the moving party had met the threshold burden of proof.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Menard v. The Centre for International Governance Innovation, 2019 ONSC 858

[86] With respect to the use of peer-to-peer software and downloading material, at the end of the day this does not constitute cause for dismissal without notice.

[87] At most, CIGI can show that this activity violated one or more internal policies of CIGI. There was no nefarious intent on Mr. Menard’s part, and indeed he made no attempt to hide what he was doing. He testified, without contradiction, that someone from the IT department assisted him in installing the peer-to-peer software. When Mr. Miller discovered, in a limited way, that some peer-to-peer software was being used, Mr. Miller did not report it to anyone or take any other action. I am not suggesting that Mr. Miller was in any position to condone the activity, but the fact that Mr. Menard made no attempt to hide the activity from Mr. Miller demonstrates, in my view, that he did not think he was doing anything improper.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. 1688782 Ontario Inc. v. Maple Leaf Foods Inc., 2018 ONCA 407

[63] To the extent there may be a duty to supply meat fit for human consumption,[3] it does not extend to the franchisees’ damages for pure economic loss at issue here.

[64] As I see it, Maple Leaf’s duty of care in tort to supply meat fit for human consumption, a duty which is aimed at protecting human health, was owed to the franchisees’ customers, not the franchisees. The claim advanced against Maple Leaf in this action rests upon an alleged additional and quite different duty owed to franchisees to protect their reputation and pay for any consequent damages for pure economic losses.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Larivière c. Ville de Montréal (Service de police de la Ville de Montréal), 2018 QCCS 5639

[23] En raison de la position prise par la Ville de Montréal dès le début du dossier et de son comportement depuis, la présente demande en irrecevabilité est manifestement mal fondée, déraisonnable et abusive au sens de l’article 54 C.p.c.[11]. Le dommage qui en résulte consiste en des honoraires et débours extrajudiciaires que M. Larivière a dû dépenser pour se défendre.

(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)