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. Smith v Obuck, 2019 ABQB 593

[351] The Plaintiff’s misrepresentations made to get on CWD cast a shadow on his credibility. Had there not been the other corroborating evidence to support the Plaintiff’s evidence of ongoing back pain since the Accident, the outcome may have been different. However, when the evidence as a whole is considered, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff has established on a balance of probabilities that he continued to suffer from back pain from the date of the Accident until the date of trial. When this fact is considered with all of the other evidence, including the expert evidence of Dr. Irvine and Dr. Naidu, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has proven on a balance of probabilities, that “but for” the defendant’s negligent act in causing the Accident on November 18, 2007, the injuries and degenerative changes to the Plaintiff’s back would not have occurred.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Webb v. Belway, 2019 ONSC 4602

[60] In making an order for dependent’s support, section 63 SLRA affords the court a broad discretion to impose conditions or restrictions as it considers appropriate, and structure the order as it deems just. These provisions include periodic or lump sum payments, possession or use of any specified property, transfer property whether absolutely, for life, or for term of years, etc.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Sirron Systems Incorporated v. Parsons Inc., 2019 ONSC 4697

[19] In my view, when a plaintiff knows that a defendant has or is in process of obtaining counsel, and intends to defend, a singular warning, such as was given in this matter, is insufficient. Plaintiffs also should be cognizant of the nature of the defendant. In this case, the defendant is an established and large multi-jurisdictional entity. A plaintiff, or his or her counsel, should thus be aware that a default in such circumstances of a likely solvent defendant, which has clearly expressed an intent to defend the claim and who is not ignoring the matter, would be exceedingly rare.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Enerkem Alberta Biofuels c. Papillon et Fils ltée, 2019 QCCA 1334

[82] Or, quoique je sois d’accord avec sa proposition voulant que les actes de gestion interne posés par un commanditaire soient insuffisants pour permettre aux tiers de le tenir responsable des dettes de la société et que je reconnaisse que l’interdiction posée vise notamment à protéger les tiers, je ne vais pas aussi loin que d’exiger d’eux qu’ils démontrent avoir effectivement cru que le commanditaire était un commandité ou que le commanditaire s’engageait. Rien, selon moi, ne justifie de leur imposer ce fardeau. Il appartient plutôt aux commanditaires, qui tirent avantage de la structure de la société en commandite, de respecter les contraintes que la loi leur impose.

(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)