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. Nahum v. Honeycomb Hospitality Inc., 2021 ONSC 1455 (CanLII)

[46] As I have noted, other courts have concluded, without evidence, that pregnancy creates difficulties for a person searching for employment. Justice Dambrot specifically found that he did not need evidence to reach that conclusion. This past judicial consideration supports the conclusion that it is open to me to take judicial notice that pregnant people face additional challenges when looking for work. Judicial notice may be taken of this conclusion because it is a fact so notorious or generally accepted as not to be the subject of debate among reasonable persons.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32 (CanLII), [2009] 2 SCR 353

[1] Mr. Grant appeals his convictions on a series of firearms offences, relating to a gun seized by police during an encounter on a Toronto sidewalk. The gun was entered as evidence against Mr. Grant and formed the basis of his convictions. The question on this appeal is whether that evidence was obtained in breach of Mr. Grant’s Charter rights, and if so, whether the evidence should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Baker v. Blue Cross, 2021 ONSC 1485 (CanLII)

19) I would also recognize, as outlined in the factum of the defendant, that a judge alone trial raises the likelihood of a reserve decision. This could add, likely less than, the six months a Superior Court Justice is allotted to render his or her reasons for decision (before seeking an extension from the Chief Justice). This compares to a jury verdict where a decision is made in the hours following the conclusion of the trial.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was R. c. Lapointe, 2021 QCCA 360 (CanLII)

[50] Les cours d’appel canadiennes, y compris la Cour suprême du Canada, ont établi de façon générale que leurs décisions antérieures doivent être suivies, sauf exception. Le stare decisis horizontal n’est donc pas toujours rigide et le précédent n’est pas toujours liant. C’est l’identification des situations où il faut s’écarter du précédent qui pose problème et qui suscite quelquefois la controverse. C’est ainsi que le stare decisis horizontal vise à maintenir l’équilibre nécessaire entre, d’une part, l’impératif d’assurer la prévisibilité et la stabilité du droit et, d’autre part, de permettre au droit d’évoluer afin de l’adapter aux réalités d’une société en évolution constante ou, autrement, afin d’éviter une injustice.

(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)