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. Basaraba v. Bridal Image Inc., 2021 ONSC 8038

[26] I initially formed the view that there was no need to write and publish detailed reasons in this case. I have changed my view on the matter not from a desire to single out any of the counsel involved. They are in good company. The problem of parties failing to upload usable motion materials to Caselines is endemic. It will not improve if light is not shone upon it. The message needs to get out to the profession that these “motions in a box” are simply not going to work without more effort on the part of the parties. Properly hyper-linked motion records and facta are quite frankly the exception and not the rule these days.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. R. v. Ellis, 2021 BCPC 280

[62] Based upon his knowledge and engagement in medication-based or evidence-based treatment, he viewed abstinence conditions as unrealistic and setting someone up for failure. As many in the justice system are aware, he referenced the fact that treatment is not a straight line and involves stages from diagnosis to accessing medication-based treatment and continuing on the medication-based treatment until maintenance is achieved for a period of two years. To achieve stability or rehabilitation, the two most critical things are access to safe and appropriate housing and access to evidence-based treatment. The other critical factor is limiting incarceration as much as possible because of the short and long term consequences of jail for a drug addict.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Catalyst Capital Group Inc. v. West Face Capital Inc., 2021 ONSC 7957

[78] In conducting the analysis under s. 137.1(4)(b), the responding party must not only point to the existence of harm, but also evidence that such harm was caused by the moving party’s expression: Pointes, at para. 68. However, while pleaded claims should not be taken at face value nor bald assertions considered sufficient, the Court in Pointes stressed that fully developed damages briefs are not required: at para. 71. The Court did stress, however, that evidence of a causal link between the moving party’s expression and the responding party’s harm will be important where there may be alternative sources of the plaintiff harm: Pointes, at paras. 71-72.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Barreau du Québec (syndic ad hoc) c. Brouillette, 2021 QCTP 92

[63] Les différentes questions soulevées par le professionnel à l’égard de sa culpabilité sont éminemment factuelles et font appel à l’application de la norme de l’erreur manifeste et déterminante. En effet, c’est l’appréciation de la preuve par le Conseil et l’exercice de sa discrétion dans l’évaluation des témoignages qui sont au cœur de ses moyens et qui visent l’ensemble des chefs[35].

[64] Dans l’affaire Brault[36], notre Tribunal a résumé les différentes illustrations émanant des tribunaux supérieurs de ce que constitue une erreur manifeste et déterminante :

(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)