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. Mundinger v. Ashton, 2019 ONSC 7161

[67] The Medicine Act is foundational legislation with regard to the practice of medicine in Ontario. Anyone who wants to know what a physician is or is qualified to do would begin by looking at the Medicine Act. If the legislature intended to depart from the definition of physician in that Act, one would expect an express exception. Given that psychologists are prohibited from holding themselves out to be physicians under the Medicine Act, it would be remarkable if the legislature intended the term “physician” to include psychologists or any other health practitioner.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. R v Braile, 2019 ABCA 477

[59] The reality of this case is that the proper measurement of the gravity of the offence included reference to the steps taken by the respondent to relieve the fears of AT and her family. The fact that AT was moved to support the respondent is an indication that AT was impressed with the genuineness of remorse and the respondent’s desire to make amends. That information goes to the character of the respondent and to his eligibility for leniency. It goes also to whether he reflects any sort of risk to the public.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Churko v Merchant, 2019 SKQB 307

[45] It is clear applications based on Rule 7-9(2)(a) are restricted to consideration of the pleadings alone: Rule 7-9(3). However, applications under sub-Rules 7-9(2)(b) to (e) are not so restricted, and consideration may be had of other appropriate evidence. In this instance, the defendants seek relief under both categories.

[46] After reviewing the detailed evidentiary record provided by the parties, I am not satisfied the test to strike the claims has been met. I am not persuaded, at this stage of the proceedings, that the claims made against these defendants suffers from a radical defect or is “hopeless”.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Hak c. Procureure générale du Québec, 2019 QCCA 2145

[31] Le critère du risque d’injustice permet deux interprétations possibles en l’espèce. D’une part, une Cour d’appel est justifiée de soulever une nouvelle question si, après étude préliminaire du dossier, elle est d’avis qu’un risque de préjudice irréparable découle du refus du sursis et que la nouvelle question aura une influence importante sur le résultat de l’appel. Plus encore, la nature du moyen omis peut également constituer un indice pour la Cour. Ici, la question nouvelle vise l’application de la Charte canadienne et la portée des droits fondamentaux, ceux auxquels il est possible de déroger par l’effet de la disposition « Nonobstant », et la garantie d’égalité entre les sexes de l’article 28, qui possiblement échappe à telle dérogation. D’autre part, la nature exceptionnelle de la demande de sursis et la norme élevée d’intervention de la Cour prônent la retenue. Quoi qu’il en soit, les motifs de la Cour d’appel sur une demande de sursis, d’application provisoire, ne devraient pas être interprétés comme une décision sur le fond, c’est-à-dire, sur la validité constitutionnelle de la Loi.

(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.