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. Canadian Appliance Source LP v. Ontario, 2020 ONSC 7492 (CanLII)

[27] However, I have little understanding of the public interest assessment behind the Covid-19 regulatory regime. Everyone sees the apparent unfairness of small stores closing while big box stores remain open. Are there issues about trying to change the public’s habits during the shutdown? That is, are stores shut down not just for the risks they present, but to try to get people to see that it is not business as usual and they should stay home? Even if apparently unfair, has the government made a policy choice to favour a small number of very large stores to contain risks while people do necessary shopping? If the applicant’s stores stay open, does that have a cascading effect on others or undermine the containment effort?

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Equal Justice Can. v. Big Brothers and Sisters Halton and Hamilton, 2020 ONSC 7573 (CanLII)

[12] There are several other specific problems with the relief requested. First and foremost, there would be no justification in these circumstances to clear the Applicant’s way in Small Claims Court by a “without prejudice” endorsement of this kind. This would, in effect, be meddling in proceedings under which this court has no jurisdiction or authority. The Small Claims Court is well capable of controlling their own process. Second, amendment of orders is permitted by Rule 59.06 when the order in question: a. contains an error arising from an accidental slip or omission or b. requires an amendment in any particular that the Court did not adjudicate. Clearly, neither condition obtains in this instance.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. R. v. Oakes[1986] 1 SCR 103, 1986 CanLII 46

1. The Chief Justice‑‑This appeal concerns the constitutionality of s. 8 of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N‑1. The section provides, in brief, that if the Court finds the accused in possession of a narcotic, he is presumed to be in possession for the purpose of trafficking. Unless the accused can establish the contrary, he must be convicted of trafficking. The Ontario Court of Appeal held that this provision constitutes a “reverse onus” clause and is unconstitutional because it violates one of the core values of our criminal justice system, the presumption of innocence, now entrenched in s. 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Crown has appealed.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Compagnie d’assurances générales Co-Operators c. Coop fédérée, 2019 QCCA 1678 (CanLII)

[108] Le dépôt dans un compte bancaire se qualifie de prêt par le déposant en faveur de la banque, laquelle devient alors débitrice[36]. Ainsi, l’argent déposé dans un compte bancaire devient « propriété de la banque », à charge par elle d’en remettre pareille quantité, en sus des intérêts, à demande[37]. Le contrat de prêt d’argent ainsi formé par le dépôt dans un compte bancaire est qualifié de contrat réel : il se crée par le décaissement des sommes. En somme, il n’y a pas de prêts d’argent en l’absence de décaissement[38].

(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)