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. Semeniuk v Ron’s Bobcat Service, 2016 ABPC 231

[10] The term “burden of proof” is used to describe two distinct concepts: in its first sense, the term refers to the obligation imposed on a party to prove or disprove a fact or issue and in the second sense, it refers to a party’s obligation to adduce or point to evidence on the record to raise an issue to the satisfaction of the trial judge.[1]

[11] In the case at bar, the Plaintiff must prove the Defendant came on her property and while there caused her some loss or damage.

[12] In that the Defendant admits that it went on the Plaintiff’s property; it must prove that it did so pursuant to some lawful authority.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Pourshian v. Walt Disney Company, 2019 ONSC 5916

[40] As stated above, all of the defendants are incorporated in and have their principal places of business in the United States. There are no allegations in the statement of claim that could enable the court to conclude that any of them other than Pixar Animation Studios, Walt Disney Pictures Inc. and Disney Shopping Inc. infringed Pourshian’s copyright under the Copyright Act in Ontario or elsewhere in Canada. In fact, other than in the description of the defendants as summarized in paragraph [7] above, there are very few references to most of the defendants in the statement of claim. Pourshian pleads in paragraph 34 of the statement of claim that INSIDE OUT was “reproduced and broadcast on television and through online streaming by ABC [the defendant American Broadcasting Company]” but there is no allegation that ABC broadcast it into Canada.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. R. v. Poulin, 2019 SCC 47

[52] In essence, the global approach posits that these numerous historical punishments be considered as potentially applicable sentences even though they bear no temporal relationship to the offender’s unlawful actions or the legal proceedings commenced against the offender in respect of those actions. If such an approach to s. 11(i) is to be adopted, it must be warranted by the right’s purposes. I now turn to those purposes.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Ville de Montréal c. EBC inc., 2019 QCCA 1731

[35] L’utilisation de l’indicatif présent « soumet », combinée avec l’exigence de fournir une « preuve » de compétence et d’aptitude, suggère une obligation. Cette obligation vise la production d’une liste de travaux de nature et d’envergure analogues. La formulation employée sous-entend qu’une analyse et une évaluation des compétences des soumissionnaires sera effectuée par l’appelante.

(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)