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. R. v. Anthony‑Cook, 2016 SCC 43

[1] Resolution discussions between Crown and defence counsel are not only commonplace in the criminal justice system, they are essential. Properly conducted, they permit the system to function smoothly and efficiently.

[2] Joint submissions on sentence — that is, when Crown and defence counsel agree to recommend a particular sentence to the judge, in exchange . . . [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. Singh v. Trump, 2016 ONCA 747

[1] In the mid-2000s, Sarbjit Singh and Se Na Lee each bought a Hotel Unit in the Trump International Hotel, a five-star building to be built in Toronto’s financial district. Mr. Singh and Mrs. Lee were both middle-class residents of the Greater Toronto Area and had no intention of occupying the Hotel Units themselves. Instead, . . . [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. Schrenk v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2016 BCCA 146

[44] Applying those principles to the case at bar, the Tribunal certainly has jurisdiction in relation to an allegation that a person has forced the complainant, expressly or otherwise, to endure harassment at work. It had jurisdiction to address the response of the complainant’s employer to his complaint. It does not, . . . [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. Bhasin v. Hrynew, [2014] 3 SCR 494, 2014 SCC 71

[1] The key issues on this appeal come down to two straightforward questions: Does Canadian common law impose a duty on parties to perform their contractual obligations honestly? And, if so, did either of the respondents breach that duty? I would answer both questions in the affirmative. Finding that there is . . . [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. Law Society of Alberta v Beaver, 2016 ABCA 290

[12] On appeal before this Court, Beaver took no issue with certain factual underpinnings of the injunction, namely that apart from the agent issue, he had been practicing law in contravention of both his undertakings and the Act. However, Beaver reiterated that he was entitled to continue acting as an agent. In his . . . [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 Vader, 2016 ABQB 505

[687] The culpable homicide of Lyle and Marie McCann is either a murder or manslaughter: Criminal Code, s 222(4). A homicide is murder (Criminal Code, s 230) if Mr. Vader killed the McCanns:

1. during commission of a robbery (Criminal Code, s 343);

2. if Mr. Vader intended to cause . . . [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 CMG, 2016 ABQB 368

[33] I reject the argument that the accused is afforded any protection in the case at bar under s. 13 of the Charter or s. 5(2) of the Canada Evidence Act, RSC 1985, c C-5 [CEA]. Sections 13 of the Charter and 5(2) of the CEA are treated as offering the same . . . [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. Duncan, 2013 ONCJ 160

1. “You should get out of town”, the man said.

2. And so began the journey that resulted in my path intersecting with Matthew Duncan’s path. And thence to these reasons, with a slight detour through territory that might have confused Lewis Carroll.

3. I suppose that I should clarify that there was no menace . . . [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. Valard Construction Ltd v Bird Construction Company, 2016 ABCA 249

[26] The appellant does not dispute the fact that it had the means to legally compel the respondent to provide information about a bond under s 33 of Alberta’s Builders’ Lien Act. Nor does it suggest ignorance of its general rights under a labour and material payment bond, or the need for . . . [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. Goska J. Nowak Professional Corporation v Robinson, 2016 ABCA 240

[21] This argument mischaracterizes the Agreement. The parties agreed that Dr. Robinson would provide his personal services to a corporate entity, his former professional corporation, RRPC 1. That corporation retained the assets of the practice. Dr. Robinson was to perform his services using office facilities and staff provided by RRPC 1 . . . [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. Teva Canada Limited v. Bank of Montreal, 2016 ONCA 94

[51] I accept that the made-up entity Pharma Team System has a name sufficiently similar to the name of Teva’s real customer Pharma Systems that one might plausibly confuse the two. The same might be said of PCE Pharmacare and PCE Management Inc., though less obviously so. Indeed, the motion judge . . . [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. The Estate of Henry Goldentuler v Crosbie et al, 2016 ONSC 5071

[40] I agree with the plaintiffs that the case law supports the proposition that, notwithstanding there was no written agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants, the defendants breached their duties of loyalty, good faith and avoidance of conflict of interests and self-interest while working in the plaintiff’s employ. . . . [more]

Posted in: Wednesday: What's Hot on CanLII