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. Tremear v. Park Town Motor Hotels Ltd., 1982 CanLII 2683 (SK QB)

[19] To constitute a defence, there must have been an express or implied understanding between the parties whereby the plaintiff gave up her right of action for negligence. The evidence here does not support any such understanding or agreement. There is nothing to warrant a finding that the plaintiff decided to waive her right of action in the event of loss or that she communicated any such decision to the defendant. She did not take the legal risk of loss in fact without redress in law. She was not volens.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. R. v. Last, 2009 SCC 45, [2009] 3 SCR 146

[1] The Crown enjoys a large discretion in deciding to include more than one count in an indictment (s. 591(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46). On an application to sever a multi-count indictment, the overarching criteria are the interests of justice. This appeal raises the issue of whether a trial judge erred in dismissing an application to sever. In my view, he did.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Langenfeld v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2019 ONCA 716

[69] The question of the reasonableness of the screening process arises, not only in considering the scope of Chief Saunders’ common law powers as an occupier, but also in respect of the determination of whether the resulting limit on Mr. Langenfeld’s s. 2(b) rights is justified under s. 1. I will address the reasonableness of the screening process in the course of the rest of my s. 1 analysis. For present purposes, it is sufficient to indicate that this record provides cogent evidence that the imposition of the screening protocol was a reasonable measure taken in furtherance of Chief Saunders’ obligation to take such measures to protect the safety of persons in Police Headquarters.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Pharmaciens (Ordre professionnel des) c. Gauthier, 2019 CanLII 79236 (QC CDOPQ)

[55] M. Bucheler rappelle succinctement les formulations les plus courantes de ces concepts telles qu’elles ressortent de la doctrine et de la jurisprudence. Il constate que les approches de la Common Law et du droit civil, si elles diffèrent sur certains aspects méthodologiques, convergent pour mesurer le comportement des auteurs potentiels de dommages en lien avec la contravention à une norme de comportement objective reflétant le contexte social prédominant. En Common Law, la négligence réfère au comportement attendu d’une « personne raisonnable » faisant preuve de la prudence nécessaire dans les circonstances en cause. En droit civil, la faute est généralement définie comme « un manquement à la conduite attendue d’une personne raisonnablement prudente et diligente placée dans des circonstances similaires ». Ainsi, la faute peut résulter d’un « manquement à un devoir », de la « violation d’une norme de conduite appréciée par rapport à la norme générale d’un comportement humain socialement acceptable » ou, plus généralement, du défaut d’avoir pris « les précautions qu’une personne prudente et raisonnable prendrait dans les mêmes circonstances ».

(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)