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. West Edmonton Mall Property Inc v Proctor, 2020 ABQB 161 (CanLII)

[116] The tweets and pronouncements of Donald Trump do not confer upon Ms. Proctor a license to defame anyone, even in her emulation of him. There is no legal paradox operating here. I assess Ms. Proctor’s conduct toward the Ghermezians and their organizations according to Alberta law. I do not purport to assess the conduct of President Trump under any standard.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Araya, 2020 SCC 5 (CanLII)

[1] This appeal involves the application of modern international human rights law, the phoenix that rose from the ashes of World War II and declared global war on human rights abuses. Its mandate was to prevent breaches of internationally accepted norms. Those norms were not meant to be theoretical aspirations or legal luxuries, but moral imperatives and legal necessities. Conduct that undermined the norms was to be identified and addressed.

[2] The process of identifying and responsively addressing breaches of international human rights law involves a variety of actors. Among them are courts, which can be asked to determine and develop the law’s scope in a particular case. This is one of those cases.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. R. v. Attard, 2020 ONCJ 108 (CanLII)

[75] I reject the Crown’s argument that any vehicle involved in a collision becomes a “thing” as compared to “a place” and any reasonable expectation of privacy of the owner is lost. (See: Hamilton, para. 37) The Applicant’s factum states, the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Belnavis, 1997 CanLII 320 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 341 has afforded section 8 protection against state intrusion into a vehicle, even though the Court has characterized the privacy interest as being “reduced” in comparison to other territorial privacy interests. The Court stated the following at para. 38:

…this Court has held that motor vehicles, though emphatically not Charter-free zones, are places in which individuals have a reasonable but “reduced” expectation of privacy.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Municipalité de Piedmont c. Uniroc Construction inc., 2020 QCCA 329 (CanLII)

[22] L’analyse des documents d’appel d’offres et, plus spécifiquement, la qualification d’une irrégularité comme mineure ou majeure constitue une question mixte de fait et de droit qui commande la déférence de notre Cour[8]. En l’espèce, la juge de première instance commet toutefois une erreur manifeste et déterminante lorsque, une fois qu’elle affirme que l’irrégularité de la soumission d’Uniroc « affecte le prix et rompt l’équilibre entre les soumissionnaires »[9], elle conclut que celle-ci « n’entraînait pas le rejet automatique de sa soumission »[10].

(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)