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. Andros v. Colliers Macaulay Nicolls Inc., 2019 ONCA 679

[20] It is not possible to simply void the part of a termination clause that offends the ESA. If a termination clause purports to contract out of an employment standard without clearly substituting a greater benefit in its place, the entire termination clause is void: North v. Metaswitch Networks Corporation, 2017 ONCA 790 (CanLII), 417 D.L.R. (4th) 429, at para. 24; Hampton Securities Limited, at para. 7. As Laskin J.A. said in Wood, at para. 21: “Contracting out of even one of the employment standards and not substituting a greater benefit would render the termination clause void and thus unenforceable”: see also paras. 64, 69. This is true even if the employee actually receives his or her statutory entitlements after termination. Accordingly, the enforceability of a termination clause is determined by the wording of the clause alone, not by an employer’s conduct after termination: Wood, at paras. 43-44.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Canada v. Canada North Group Inc., 2019 ABCA 314

[50] If the Crown’s position prevailed, absurd consequences could follow. Interim financing of CCAA restructurings would simply end. Interim financing is necessary to achieve the purposes of the CCAA, with approximately 75% of restructurings requiring the aid of interim lenders: Janis P Sarra, Rescue! The Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, 2nd ed (Toronto: Carswell, 2013) at 199; Indalex at para 59. The chambers judge rightly recognized the important role played by the court-appointed monitors who cannot resign without leave of the court, and the directors of the debtor company who steer the sinking ship.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Kapoor v The Law Society of Saskatchewan, 2019 SKCA 85

[11] The hearing committee found as fact that the decision by Mr. Kapoor not to bring Whatmore to the attention of the trial judge was deliberate. It then went on to hold that: (1) the specific obligation to disclose binding authority on point does not subsume the more general duty of candour; and (2) in the circumstances of this case, Mr. Kapoor’s failure to bring the Whatmore case to the trial judge’s attention constituted conduct unbecoming.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Murray Hall c. Procureure générale du Québec, 2019 QCCS 3664

[41] Concernant plus particulièrement les discussions ayant mené à l’adoption des articles 5 et 10, il appert que leur objet est d’interdire la possession d’une plante de cannabis et la culture de cannabis à des fins personnelles afin d’éviter la banalisation de sa consommation, de contrôler son accessibilité et sa qualité ainsi que de le légaliser progressivement. Ces dispositions ont également pour objet de prévenir et de réduire les méfaits du cannabis. Ultimement, ces articles visent effectivement à minimiser les risques pour la santé et la sécurité des Québécois liés à la consommation du cannabis[36].

(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)