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. Hunter et al. v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 SCR 145, 1984 CanLII 33

Where the state’s interest is not simply law enforcement as, for instance, where state security is involved, or where the individual’s interest is not simply his expectation of privacy as, for instance, when the search threatens his bodily integrity, the relevant standard might well be a different one. That is not the situation in the present case. In cases like the present, reasonable and probable grounds, established upon oath, to believe that an offence has been committed and that there is evidence to be found at the place of the search, constitutes the minimum standard, consistent with s. 8 of the Charter, for authorizing search and seizure. In so far as subss. 10(1) and 10(3) of the Combines Investigation Act do not embody such a requirement, I would hold them to be further inconsistent with s. 8.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. R. v. Desautel, 2019 BCCA 151

[57] In my view, the Van der Peet test addresses the necessary connection between the modern and historic collective through the concept of continuity. The formalistic interpretation of the words “Aboriginal peoples of Canada” proposed by the Crown fails to take into account the Aboriginal perspective and therefore cannot be relied upon to foreclose a modern-day claimant from the opportunity of establishing an Aboriginal right pursuant to Van der Peet. Simply put, if the Van der Peet requirements are met, the modern Indigenous community will be an “Aboriginal peoples of Canada”.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation v Alberta, 2019 ABCA 401

[34] This case raises the issue of when a court should become involved in providing advisory opinions to the parties based on hypothetical questions absent any factual context, or when no meaningful remedy turns on them. We are of the view that a court must be extremely cautious in so doing. This is especially so when addressing the Crown’s obligation to consult with First Nations over aboriginal or treaty rights that might be impacted by an energy project. This is a necessarily fact-specific analysis. In our view, the chambers judge below was properly cautious in this regard.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Li c. Equifax inc., 2019 QCCS 4340

[27] Selon les allégations de la Demande modifiée, le demandeur n’a pas été victime de vol d’identité ni n’a encore dépensé d’argent pour de l’achat de services de monitoring continuel de crédit ni n’a encore subi de troubles et inconvénients associés entre autres à l’annulation de cartes de crédit et à l’organisation de services de monitoring de crédit. Le demandeur fait état de risque futur et de dépenses à venir. Il ajoute avoir subi un « mental distress ». Est-ce suffisant? Le Tribunal est d’avis que non. Voici pourquoi.

(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.

Comments are closed.