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. Hamza v. Law Society of Ontario et al, 2021 ONSC 2023 (CanLII)

[27] The Notice of Application, affidavit and Factum filed by the applicant together amount to over 1,000 pages of rambling, pseudo-intellectual attacks on the LSO and the other respondents, expressions of his opinion on their character and integrity, racist and misogynist attacks on the respondents and the judiciary, arguments that amount to little more than incomprehensible legal gibberish, and supposedly “historical” references to things such as genocide, colonization and slavery that can have no possible connection to what this case is, at its base, all about: his objection to the fact that the respondents made complaints to the LSO that he acted in a manner unbecoming of a member of the legal profession, and that the LSO had the audacity to investigate these complaints. Together his pleadings meet almost every one of the examples set out in Carney Timber for when a pleading may be struck out under Rule 25.11.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Coutinho v. Ocular Health Centre Ltd., 2021 ONSC 3076 (CanLII)

[43] In my view, the scope of s. 7 deeming a temporary lay-off for reasons related to COVID-19 to not constitute a constructive dismissal is constrained by s. 8(1) of the ESA. It is not possible to reconcile the interpretation of the IDEL Regulation urged by Ocular with the section of the statute which unequivocally provides that an employee’s civil remedy against her/his employee shall not be affected by any provision of the Act.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Sheikh v Kathuria, 2021 ONSC 3273 (CanLII)

[25] Flipping around, if the Toronto doctors have a slam dunk limitation defence that will win on an amendment motion, isn’t it a slam dunk whenever and wherever brought? If they do not have a slam dunk, then what is the point of demanding that the motion to amend be brought at all? Is it just to put the plaintiffs through another procedural hoop and take a free shot? Should the amendment not just be allowed on consent with the limitation period reserved so the parties can get on with it? That would be the obvious and cooperative outcome if anyone was motivated to provide the most efficient, affordable, process to yield the earliest fair resolution on the merits for all parties.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was R. c. Gosselin, 2020 QCCQ 2653 (CanLII)

[58] L’apparition de nouveaux moyens de communication crée, désormais, la possibilité d’entrer en contact avec des personnes d’une façon différente que lors des rencontres plus traditionnelles. Nous parlons ici de relations virtuelles.

[59] Ce type de relations interpersonnelles peut cependant comporter des risques et mettre en péril la vie privée lors d’un investissement émotif trop hâtif. L’histoire entre l’accusée et M. P. l’illustre bien.

(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)