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. Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71 (CanLII), [2014] 3 SCR 494

[1] The key issues on this appeal come down to two straightforward questions: Does Canadian common law impose a duty on parties to perform their contractual obligations honestly? And, if so, did either of the respondents breach that duty? I would answer both questions in the affirmative. Finding that there is a duty to perform contracts honestly will make the law more certain, more just and more in tune with reasonable commercial expectations. It will also bring a measure of justice to the appellant, Mr. Bhasin, who was misled and lost the value of his business as a result.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. R v Garland, 2021 ABCA 46 (CanLII)

[128] I have had the advantage of reading the reasons of the Majority, which set out the facts, the sentencing reasons of the trial judge, and the principles of statutory interpretation. I would allow the appeal on the issue of statutory interpretation that is raised: s. 745.51 of the Criminal Code does not apply to simultaneous multiple convictions for murder.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Center for Gender Advocacy c. Attorney General of Quebec, 2021 QCCS 191 (CanLII)

[109] The government cannot expect transgender or non-binary people to change their gender identity in order to benefit from the law. This case provides an eloquent, if circular, example: the plaintiffs cannot be expected to change their identity in order to benefit from legislation that allows them to prove their identity.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Pharmaciens (Ordre professionnel des) c. Assaraf, 2021 QCCDPHA 4 (CanLII)

[234] Lorsque des sanctions sont suggérées conjointement par les parties, le Conseil n’a pas à s’interroger sur la sévérité ou la clémence des suggestions conjointes et doit y donner suite, sauf s’il les considère déraisonnables, contraires à l’intérêt public, inadéquates ou de nature à déconsidérer l’administration de la justice.

(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.