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. Theralase Technologies Inc. v. Lanter, 2020 ONSC 205 (CanLII)

[2] This motion raises the issue of whether the court has jurisdiction to grant judgment against unidentified defendants for defamatory statements published on the internet. For the reasons that follow, I find that where a form of service can reasonably be expected to bring court proceedings to the attention of an unidentified defendant at whom the litigation finger has been appropriately pointed, judgment can issue against the defendant despite the fact that the plaintiffs and the court do not know the defendant’s name.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. R. v. Chow, 2020 ONCJ 57 (CanLII)

[67] As stated above, in these circumstances it is presumed that he had an expectation of privacy in the apartment because to a significant, albeit limited extent it functioned as a home for him. I do not think that there are clearly defined time limits to determine whether a location is a home. For example, one may have a home, but be away from it most of the time while travelling for business.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. R. v. Marakah2017 SCC 59

[1] Can Canadians ever reasonably expect the text messages they send to remain private, even after the messages have reached their destination? Or is the state free, regardless of the circumstances, to access text messages from a recipient’s device without a warrant? The question in this appeal is whether the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure in s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms can ever apply to such messages.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was R. c. Naffaa, 2020 QCCQ 292 (CanLII)

[55] Le sentiment personnel de l’accusé à l’égard du caractère moral ou honnête de l’acte ou de ses conséquences n’est pas pertinent. Comme le résume la juge McLachlin dans l’arrêt Théroux « [l]e fait que l’accusé ait pu espérer qu’il n’y aurait aucune privation ou qu’il ait pu croire qu’il ne faisait rien de mal ne constitue pas un moyen de défense »[59] puisque « [d]e nombreuses fraudes sont commises par des personnes qui croient qu’elles ne font rien de mal ou qui croient sincèrement que le fait de mettre en péril le bien d’autrui ne causera finalement aucune perte véritable. »[60]

(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.