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. Blake v. Blake, 2019 ONSC 4062

[32] As to counsel’s obligation to inform the court as to relevant authorities, two principles emerge: (1) where lawyer knows of a relevant authority, the failure of the lawyer to inform the court of that authority could be seen as an attempt to mislead the court; (2) where a lawyer does not know about authority, ignorance may nonetheless be no excuse. Lawyers have a duty to conduct reasonable research on points of law that are known in advance to be contentious. Thus, while this may not amount to a deliberate misrepresentation, counsel nevertheless may be found to be in breach of their duty to the court for failing to have conducted reasonable research as to relevant authorities.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Capital Steel Inc v Chandos Construction Ltd, 2019 ABCA 32

[18] The chambers judge commented that there was some debate about whether the anti-deprivation rule applied in Canada and the extent of its application. He ultimately concluded that it was clear that there was a common law rule, based on public policy, that prevented parties from contracting out of bankruptcy law and that given the rule, he would determine whether clause VII (Q)(d) was an attempt to contract out of bankruptcy law. Deloitte submits that Canadian jurisprudence recognizes the common law anti-deprivation rule. Chandos does not deny the existence of the rule, but contends it has not enjoyed significant application in Canada. My colleague, Wakeling JA, goes further and concludes that the common law anti-deprivation rule is not part of Canadian law. I disagree with his conclusion.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Andrews v Toor, 2019 ABCA 268

[26] Section 115(a) of the Traffic Safety Act makes it mandatory that drivers obey the Rules of the Road. Section 34 of the Rules of the Road provides that when two vehicles approach or enter an intersection from different directions at approximately the same time, the person driving the vehicle to the left shall yield the right of way to the vehicle on the right. The respondent did not obey that rule and was found liable for that reason. However, section 115(1) of the Traffic Safety Act also requires drivers to drive with due care and attention and with reasonable consideration for others using the road. The trial judge found that the appellant failed to drive with due care and attention or with reasonable consideration for others using the road and therefore was contributorily negligent.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Barreau du Québec (syndique adjointe) c. Deslauriers, 2019 QCCDBQ 46

[60] Dans le présent contexte, le fait pour un avocat d’utiliser à des fins autres ces sommes d’argent confiées par ses clients constitue une des infractions les plus graves pouvant être commises dans l’exercice de la profession. D’ailleurs, une radiation doit nécessairement être imposée dans un tel cas aux termes de l’article 156 du Code des professions.

(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)