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. R. v. Nikirk, 2020 BCPC 10 (CanLII)

[1] It must be remembered that accidents happen, sometimes accidents with catastrophic consequences solely as a result of negligence and not as a result of criminal behaviour. Neither the consequences of the accident, nor the severity of the injuries caused by that accident, define the criminal responsibility of the driver of the vehicle at fault. In a criminal case, the court must decide if the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the driving in question was dangerous, even the nature and circumstances that were or might reasonably have been expected to be present at the time of the accident. Then the Crown must prove that that dangerous driving was the cause of the injuries or the bodily harm sustained in the accident.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Franiel v Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2020 ABQB 66 (CanLII)

[53] In my view, plaintiff’s counsel has identified a “rational strategy” for wanting to know the answer to the question if we take into account the fact that exemplary damages have been sought. That is, if the refusal to provide compensation was made at the first instance by someone without access to the Bank’s policy or procedural guidelines, or alternatively by someone who had access to those guidelines but made the decision contrary to the things said in them, the inquiry might be proper. It might have a bearing on the claim for exemplary damages.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Sunrise North Senior Living Ltd. v. The Sheriff (Regional Municipality of York), 2020 ONSC 469 (CanLII)

[91] In Apotex, at para. 118, the Federal Court of Appeal stated that “denying mandamus appears to arise in instances where potential health and safety risks to the public are perceived to outweigh an individual’s right to pursue personal or economic interests”. At the same time, at paras. 124-125, the Court also recognized that, in weighing the balance of convenience, the Court’s discretion to refuse mandamus should only be exercised in the “clearest of circumstances”, given the public interest in upholding the rule of law.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Truchon c. Procureur général du Canada, 2019 QCCS 3792 (CanLII)

[1] Gravement malade, sans aucun espoir d’amélioration, se trouvant dans un état de déclin avancé et irréversible de ses capacités et éprouvant des souffrances persistantes et intolérables, une personne adulte et apte peut-elle, en l’absence de toute coercition ou contrainte, recevoir l’aide médicale à mourir alors qu’elle ne se trouve pas à l’approche de la mort?

[2] Légalisée par le Parlement dans la foulée de l’arrêt Carter[1] rendu par la Cour suprême en 2015, l’aide médicale à mourir est strictement encadrée au pays[2]. Afin de recevoir l’aide médicale à mourir, une personne doit être majeure et admissible au régime public de soins de santé. Elle doit aussi être apte à prendre des décisions à l’égard de sa santé, formuler une demande de manière volontaire et fournir un consentement libre et éclairé. Des exigences relatives à la condition médicale de la personne s’y ajoutent.

(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)