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. Lavergne-Poitras v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FC 1232

[58] The Attorney General concedes that forced medical treatment, including forced vaccination, would engage liberty and security of the person interests under section 7 of the Charter. However, the Attorney General argues that the supplier vaccination policy does not mandate vaccination, and that section 7 does not protect purely economic interests, including an individual’s right to pursue their chosen profession, citing Siemens v Manitoba (Attorney General), 2003 SCC 3 at paras 45–46 and Tanase v College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario, 2021 ONCA 482 at paras 35–45.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Enviro Hazmat Emergency Response Inc. v Olson, 2018 ABPC 286

[4] Some motorists prefer to deal with the original manufacturer rather than buy aftermarket replacement parts. Part of the appeal with Ford parts, is that Ford guarantees their products. If an aftermarket product fails, the remedy is with the company who made the product, not Ford. Some of these aftermarket companies may be under contract to only make parts exclusively for Ford. They make a part for Ford (as an OEM), then Ford puts it into their vehicles as a genuine Ford part. However, this Ford supplier (OEM) may also supply parts to aftermarket stores to sell that same product, if the OEM is not restricted by an exclusive arrangement with Ford. This original equipment manufacturer is supplying both the Ford market and the aftermarket. Again, if one buys the part from Ford, there is a Ford warranty. If one buys from an aftermarket store like the international NAPA stores, or a smaller aftermarket business, the warranty is with that supplier.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Dhillon v. PM Management Systems Inc., 2014 ONSC 5407

[11] When an uncontemplated event or circumstance occurs after the signing of a contract that without default of either party makes the performance of the contract impossible or would make performance a radically different thing than what was promised or intended by the parties or that strikes at the root of the agreement, both parties may be discharged from further performance and moneys paid may be restored to the party who paid them…

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Sorel-Tracy (Ville de) c. St-Sauveur, 2007 QCCS 3295

[3] La Ville invoque premièrement l’article 231 L.A.U., dont voici le texte :

Art. 231. Lorsqu’une construction est dans un état tel qu’elle peut mettre en danger des personnes ou lorsqu’elle a perdu la moitié de sa valeur par vétusté, par incendie ou par explosion, la Cour supérieure peut, sur requête de la municipalité régionale de comté, de la municipalité ou de tout intéressé, ordonner l’exécution des travaux requis pour assurer la sécurité des personnes ou, s’il n’existe pas d’autre remède utile, la démolition de la construction. Le tribunal peut, selon le cas, ordonner au propriétaire de la construction ou à la personne qui en a la garde de maintenir une surveillance adéquate de la construction jusqu’à ce que la mesure corrective imposée soit apportée. Il peut autoriser la municipalité régionale de comté ou la municipalité à assurer cette surveillance aux frais du propriétaire si celui-ci ou la personne qui a la garde de la construction omet de se conformer au jugement.

En cas d’urgence exceptionnelle, le tribunal peut autoriser la municipalité régionale de comté ou la municipalité à exécuter ces travaux ou à procéder à cette démolition sur le champ et la municipalité régionale de comté ou la municipalité peut en réclamer le coût du propriétaire du bâtiment. Le tribunal peut aussi, dans tous les cas, enjoindre aux personnes qui habitent le bâtiment de l’évacuer dans le délai qu’il indique.

(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)