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. AVI v MHVB, 2020 ABQB 489 (CanLII)

[2] Pseudolaw is typically employed by conspiratorial, fringe, criminal, and dissident minorities who claim pseudolaw replaces or displaces conventional law. These groups attempt to gain advantage, authority, and other benefits via this false law. In Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 [Meads], Associate Chief Justice Rooke reviewed many forms of and variations on pseudolaw that have been deployed in Canada. In his decision, he described populations and personalities that use these ideas, and explained how these “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument” [“OPCA”] concepts are legally false and universally rejected by Canadian courts. Rooke ACJ concluded OPCA strategies are instead scams promoted to gullible, ill-informed, and often greedy individuals by unscrupulous “guru” personalities. Employing pseudolaw is always an abuse of court processes, and warrants immediate court response: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283 at paras 180, 670-671 [Unrau #2].

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Chase v. Chase, 2020 ONSC 5083 (CanLII)

[28] I note that in this case (and in all others currently before the Court) the Mother and Father have delegated the authority to make the decision respecting their child’s in-person versus online attendance at school to me, a judge who has never met the parents and who will likely never meet the child. I would encourage the parents to return to mediation as this is a process that empowers them to make these important decisions.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. West Edmonton Mall Property Inc v Proctor, 2020 ABQB 477 (CanLII)

[21] In determining whether there is proper forum per Banro, the Court applies a two-step test. The first step is to determine jurisdiction under the “real and substantial connection” test. Here, the Plaintiffs are in Alberta and Ms. Proctor, at the time of posting the material, lived in Alberta. (She professes to not living in Edmonton currently and suggests that no one can prove she was in Edmonton at the time the offending material was posted, as if that is determinative of jurisdiction.) If a substantial connection is found to exist, the defendant can then engage in the second step, which is to argue that the chosen forum is inappropriate, a doctrine known as forum non conveniens. As I said, the entire jurisdictional argument should be made at the beginning of the lawsuit, not at the end. She has made no attempt to argue that another forum is more convenient, only that the platforms she uses are owned in the US. Applying Banro, there is little doubt that the correct forum was chosen in this case and the chosen court has jurisdiction.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Hogue c. Procureur général du Québec, 2020 QCCA 1081 (CanLII)

[44] En vertu de la théorie de l’équivalence des conditions, « est considéré comme causal tout fait sans lequel le dommage n’aurait pas eu lieu »[53]. Or, bien qu’une faute puisse être une cause sine qua non du dommage, elle n’en constitue pas nécessairement la cause adéquate et immédiate. En effet, comme l’explique l’auteur Frédéric Levesque, cette théorie « est difficilement applicable en pratique, car elle aboutirait à reconnaître un rôle causal à des événements n’ayant qu’un rapport très lointain avec le dommage »[54]. Le rejet de cette théorie peut alors s’expliquer par le fait qu’elle ouvre la porte à l’indemnisation d’un préjudice qui résulte indirectement de la faute, ce qui est contraire à l’article 1607 C.c.Q.[55].

(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.