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. Toronto Transit Commission v Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113, 2019 CanLII 58978 (ON LA)

72. Turning to the current language at issue. In my opinion, the most reasonable construction of the critical sentence would permit the TTC to stop using the SBA as a means of delivering sick leave benefits to employees but not demand that it first obtain the necessary consents from all concerned to formally discontinue the existence of the SBA. The only purpose of the SBA had been to deliver benefits and the TTC has maintained a Collective Agreement right to discontinuance at a time of its choosing for decades. It seems implausible that the TTC having secured this unilateral right at a front door bargaining table would have, at the same time, encumbered it with a back door Union veto that would be the effective outcome if it had actually been intended to require the Employer to secure the SBA windup as a condition precedent.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Plesa v Richardson, 2019 ABCA 264

[37] The respondents argued that acknowledgement of a claim must be considered from the subjective view of the person potentially liable. They submit they were not acknowledging the debt. Despite using the word “owing”, they did not intend to acknowledge any debt because the loan had been forgiven. They argued that whether or not the loan had in fact been forgiven is irrelevant to their subjective belief.

[38] The chambers judge never dealt with these arguments nor even discussed the respondents’ letters of October 10 and November 14, 2014. Given that evidence, the application of section 8 of the Limitation Act requires a proper legal analysis.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Hoddle v. Gelata, 2019 ONSC 4047

[22] As I appreciate the position of the defendants, it is that even if there was a breach of the Occupiers Liability Act such breach was not a proximate cause of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. As submitted during oral argument, the defendants say that the only reasonable course of action for the plaintiff to have taken once she was on the roof and the door closed and locked behind her was for her to wait by the door for help to arrive. By venturing away from the vicinity of the door, according to the defendants, the plaintiff is solely responsible for falling or jumping from the roof and injuring herself.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Blais c. R., 2017 QCCA 1774

[37] En l’espèce, la conversation par messages textes a été initiée par Beaumont qui, après avoir salué l’appelant, lui a simplement demandé s’il avait de l’ecstasy. Il n’y a aucune insistance à se procurer ladite drogue, à aller à la rencontre de son interlocuteur et à la lui vendre, mais simplement une manifestation d’intérêt à l’acheter, le cas échéant. Or, l’appelant a répondu immédiatement à cette manifestation d’intérêt en écrivant qu’il n’avait pas d’ecstasy, mais qu’il proposait des comprimés de méthamphétamine. Ainsi, tout indique que l’appelant n’a pas été incité à faire une chose dans laquelle il n’était pas déjà engagé.

(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.