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. R v Russell, 2021 SKPC 31 (CanLII)

[27] I find the commentary by The Honourable Gilles Renaud, Ontario Court of Justice author of “The Sentencing Code of Canada – Principles and Objectives”, (2009) paragraph §3.52 helpful. Judge Renaud is referring to police officers, but I find it aptly gives the reason why general deterrence is required in such assaults against frontline workers in the present COVID-19 pandemic situation.

… it is important to emphasize the need to denounce any harm visited upon those who accept to encounter grave risks in order to protect the whole of the community… Stated otherwise, harm to this vulnerable group must be denounced on grounds of policy, to proclaim our fundamental values as a society… by ensuring that all understand that an attack on our protectors is an attack on the community as a whole.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. 8573123 Canada Inc. (Elias Restaurant) v. Keele Sheppard Plaza Inc., 2021 ONCA 371 (CanLII)

[14] The application judge was entitled to take judicial notice of anti-Black racism in Canada. He found that whether the Landlord’s racial stereotyping was conscious or not, it was a matter he could take account in the exercise of his discretion to grant relief from forfeiture. As he put it, at para. 38, “the societal realities pertaining to Black businesspeople like the Tenants must be factored into the exercise of the Court’s discretion in considering equitable remedies like injunctions and relief from forfeiture.”

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Colucci v. Colucci, 2021 SCC 24 (CanLII)

[1] This appeal centres on the appropriate framework for determining applications to retroactively decrease the amount of child support owing or forgive child support arrears under s. 17 of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.). The amount of child support payable varies based on the payor parent’s income, and income often fluctuates. As a result, applications to retroactively vary support are a common occurrence in courtrooms across the country. In an ideal world, when parents work together in the best interests of their children, they will provide full and accurate income information every year and recalculate the proper amount of support owing. When that does not occur, s. 17 of the Divorce Act allows a parent to ask the court to vary an existing order retroactively to align with the payor’s actual income for the relevant period.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Gill c. R., 2021 QCCA 883 (CanLII)

[30] Or, dans le cas qui nous concerne, en payant la totalité de l’amende et les frais, l’appelant reconnaît avoir reçu un constat d’infraction pour avoir omis de signaler un accident avec un objet inanimé au service policier alors qu’il était le conducteur du véhicule[15] ainsi qu’avoir payé l’amende et avoir accumulé les points d’inaptitude relatifs à ce constat[16]. Il résulte de cette admission, de même que des explications données par l’appelant relativement au paiement de l’amende, qu’il n’a consigné aucun plaidoyer avant de payer la totalité du montant réclamé (art. 166 al. 2 C.p.p.). Il était en conséquence, en vertu de l’article 162 C.p.p., réputé avoir transmis un plaidoyer de culpabilité et, en vertu de l’art. 165 C.p.p., réputé avoir été déclaré coupable de l’infraction.

(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)