Canada’s online legal magazine.

Archive for ‘Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII’ Feature

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. Innocon Inc. v. Daro Flooring Constructions Inc., 2021 ONSC 7558

[84] Parties should expect case conference to be used to resolve summarily procedural issues with greater frequency. With current backlogs and resource limitations, there is simply no judicial time available to schedule short motions especially those which, like here, are tactical and do not advance the resolution of the case on . . . [more]

Posted in: Wednesday: What's Hot on CanLII

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 . . . [more]

Posted in: Wednesday: What's Hot on CanLII

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. Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 ONCA 779

[527] Historical Aboriginal treaties should “be interpreted in light of the contexts in which they were signed, and that interpretation must be both liberal and dynamic so as to avoid the freezing of rights, while any ambiguity is to be resolved in favour of the Aboriginal signatories.”[444] This requires courts to go beyond the . . . [more]

Posted in: Wednesday: What's Hot on CanLII

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. Toronto Transit Commission v Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113, 2021 CanLII 107805 (ON LA)

13. Labour relations between the parties is always enhanced by the parties reaching agreement over the resolution of their disputes. Absent agreement, disputes are arbitrated. In this matter the TTC has not indicated what its availability is to commence these arbitration proceedings. Indeed, the tenor of the . . . [more]

Posted in: Wednesday: What's Hot on CanLII

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. Northern Regional Health Authority v. Horrocks, 2021 SCC 42

[1] Labour relations legislation across Canada requires every collective agreement to include a clause providing for the final settlement of all differences concerning the interpretation, application or alleged violation of the agreement, by arbitration or otherwise. The precedents of this Court have maintained that the jurisdiction conferred upon the decision‑maker appointed thereunder . . . [more]

Posted in: Wednesday: What's Hot on CanLII

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. Lavallee et al. v. Isak, 2021 ONSC 6661

[34] To succeed on a defence of justification, a defendant is required to adduce evidence showing that the statement was substantially true. The burden is on the defendant to prove substantial truth of the “sting” or main thrust, of the defamation: Bent v. Platnick, 2020 SCC 23, 449 D.L.R. (4th) 45, at . . . [more]

Posted in: Wednesday: What's Hot on CanLII

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. Solanki v. Reilly, 2021 ONSC 6694

[16] In this case, the plaintiffs must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the accident caused them to sustain a “permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function.”

[17] The terms “serious”, “permanent”, “impairment” and “important function” are defined by regulation under the . . . [more]

Posted in: Wednesday: What's Hot on CanLII

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. Canadian Thermo Windows Inc. v. Seangio, 2021 ONSC 6555

[74] The whole point of s. 137.1 is to prevent a plaintiff from inflicting substantial costs on defendants in order to chill their participation in expressions on matter of public interest. Without the stay under s. 137.1 (5), the full panoply of expensive procedural steps under the Rules of Civil Procedure would . . . [more]

Posted in: Wednesday: What's Hot on CanLII

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. Toronto (City) v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2021 SCC 34

[1] While cast as a claim of right under s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, this appeal, fundamentally, concerns the exercise of provincial legislative authority over municipalities. The issue, simply put, is whether and how the Constitution of Canada restrains a provincial legislature from changing the conditions . . . [more]

Posted in: Wednesday: What's Hot on CanLII

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. Krug v Dakine Home Builders Inc., 2021 SKQB 241

[39] I raise this not to confuse the issue of liquated damages (which are absent in the contract) or whether Dakine should be paid for work already done; but rather to illustrate that since old times, the courts have seemed to view “time is of the essence” clauses in a rather restrictive . . . [more]

Posted in: Wednesday: What's Hot on CanLII

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. Dr. Chuang v. Fogler Rubinoff, 2021 ONSC 5942

[21] The parties submit that none of the concerns expressed by the Court of Appeal in the recent decision of Butera v. Chown, Cairns LLP, 2017 ONCA 783, are relevant in this case. The parties are already before the court pursuant to the Defendant’s summary judgment motion and therefore granting partial summary . . . [more]

Posted in: Wednesday: What's Hot on CanLII

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. MDS Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company, 2021 ONCA 594

[96] The trial judge relied on the American decision in MRI Healthcare to conclude that the resulting loss of use constituted resulting physical damage. That case, however, does not support the proposition that economic loss should be covered under an exception to an exclusion for resulting physical damage. On the contrary, . . . [more]

Posted in: Wednesday: What's Hot on CanLII