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. Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v Alberta, 2019 ABCA 411

[45] In this case, in assessing what remedy was appropriate, Arbitrator Moreau decided that the employment relationship was not viable for the “lack of truthfulness” in three different contexts: during the interviews with the employer (the conduct for which he was disciplined by the employer); during the proceedings before Arbitrator Moreau; . . . [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. Hunter et al. v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 SCR 145, 1984 CanLII 33

Where the state’s interest is not simply law enforcement as, for instance, where state security is involved, or where the individual’s interest is not simply his expectation of privacy as, for instance, when the search threatens his bodily integrity, the relevant standard might well be a different one. . . . [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. Semeniuk v Ron’s Bobcat Service, 2016 ABPC 231

[10] The term “burden of proof” is used to describe two distinct concepts: in its first sense, the term refers to the obligation imposed on a party to prove or disprove a fact or issue and in the second sense, it refers to a party’s obligation to adduce or point to evidence 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. Fleming v. Ontario, 2019 SCC 45

[65] This proposed power of arrest would involve substantial prima facie interference with significant liberty interests. Indeed, few police actions interfere with an individual’s liberty more than arrest — an action which completely restricts the person’s ability to move about in society free from state coercion. As this Court recently noted, “placing a person . . . [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. Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick2008 SCC 9

[1] This appeal calls on the Court to consider, once again, the troubling question of the approach to be taken in judicial review of decisions of administrative tribunals. The recent history of judicial review in Canada has been marked by ebbs and flows of deference, confounding tests and new words for old problems, but . . . [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. R. v. Lloyd2016 SCC 13

[1] Parliament has the power to proscribe conduct as criminal and determine the punishment for it, and judges have the duty to apply the laws Parliament adopts on punishment to offenders. But individuals are also entitled to receive, and judges have a duty to impose, sentences that are constitutional having regard to the circumstances of . . . [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. Colistro v. Tbaytel, 2019 ONCA 197

[27] The requirement that the defendant have intended to produce the harm that occurred, or known that the harm was substantially certain to follow as a result of his or her conduct, is an important limiting element of the tort and distinguishes it from actions in negligence. It is now well established that a plaintiff . . . [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. Tremear v. Park Town Motor Hotels Ltd., 1982 CanLII 2683 (SK QB)

[19] To constitute a defence, there must have been an express or implied understanding between the parties whereby the plaintiff gave up her right of action for negligence. The evidence here does not support any such understanding or agreement. There is nothing to warrant a finding that the plaintiff . . . [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. Andros v. Colliers Macaulay Nicolls Inc., 2019 ONCA 679

[20] It is not possible to simply void the part of a termination clause that offends the ESA. If a termination clause purports to contract out of an employment standard without clearly substituting a greater benefit in its place, the entire termination clause is void: North v. Metaswitch Networks Corporation . . . [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. R v Lewis, 2019 ABCA 311

[8] There is a unique wrinkle in this case which rather diminishes its deployment as a case precedent in the future. At trial, Crown counsel conceded that a breach of the appellant’s s 8 Charter right had occurred during the investigation of this case. This concession seemed intended to be an admission of both fact . . . [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. Pollard Windows Inc. v 1736106 Ontario Inc., 2019 ONSC 4859

[51] In my view, having admitted liability formally, including admitting the facts on which liability was based, it is not open to 1746878 Ontario Inc. to withdraw its admission before this court without leave to now argue that the judge erred in finding it liable for contempt. Mr. Hutton argued that . . . [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. Hilson v. 1336365 Alberta Ltd., 2019 ONCA 65

[1] On May 27, 2019, the court released a judgment in this appeal in error. One of the members of the panel that heard the appeal, Justice Huscroft, was not provided with either the draft judgment for review or the final judgment for signature. The judgment was signed, in error, by another justice . . . [more]

Posted in: Wednesday: What's Hot on CanLII